Rail staff conversation overheard

[dangie]

“would you hear British Airways staff talking like that in front of their passengers”

I’m pretty sure that cabin crew make derogatory remarks amongst themselves about some of the passengers?

 

[skyhigh]

you have a greater faith in human nature than I do!

Maybe it depends on the company. I know at our TOC a driver was pulled for investigation following a single complaint via Twitter (with no evidence provided) that they were vaping in the cab.

 

[WizCastro197]

You’ve no idea what free speech is. You aren’t free in any democratic country to make racist statements in your staff uniform at your place of work.

In the UK, if customers hear, and complain, it is at the very least misconduct and potentially gross misconduct depending on the content of what was said. If one of the staff members overheard, or were even one of the direct parties to the conversation, and were offended, they’d be able to complain to their manager.

That’s an unacceptable thing to say while at work.

I'd give up pursuing that debate with @busestrains, remember, they were the same person who said Andrew Tate's ideology was reasonable.

Nevertheless, I agree entirely with what you have said.

 

[Haywain]

you have a greater faith in human nature than I do!

I did say might, rather than will. Of course, the next conversation overheard might be about how "some c**t reported me for a private conversation"!

 

[nw1]

Some of you might be surprised by my view on this, as I am definitely very strongly liberal by political persuasion and, in particular, strongly pro-immigration and anti-discrimination against immigrants and those on benefits (indeed I have on more than one occasion got into pro-immigration "rants" on other threads, I'm sorry to say).

However, here it seems the rail workers were just chatting amongst themselves, however horrible and offensive what they were saying was. (And, in my view, it was pretty vile hard-right nonsense, for avoidance of doubt).

My position would be, that if someone who was a direct target of their far-right nonsense (an immigrant, or person on benefits for example) put in a complaint, then they should be given a stern talking-to and a warning not to do it again.

On the other hand I don't think it's the position of a general member of the public to do anything.

I have talked to people in pubs who have said some particularly obnoxious things against continental European immigrants, which I found personally very offensive. However I didn't report them to the landlord and tried to get them barred from the pub!

 

[WizCastro197]

If it is a just a private conversation among employees than i see nothing wrong. It is just free speech. I would not call that misconduct. If they were saying it directly to passengers or over the speakers or anything like that then of course that is wrong and unprofessional and they would quite likely get sacked. But if it is just a conversation amongst themselves than i see nothing wrong. I am not sure how that could be considered misconduct. I have overheard plenty of railway staff having conversations with each other saying rather controversial things over the years. It is far more common than you might think.

There is a time and a place to say these controversial things, and that definitely isn't at work, nor in uniform. OP did mention he began to speak loudly towards the end, perhaps in a deliberate act to offend members of the public...?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have talked to people in pubs who have said some particularly obnoxious things against continental European immigrants, which I found personally very offensive. However I didn't report them to the landlord and tried to get them barred from the pub!

That's a bit different from being in company uniform on company premises where what you say will be associated with the company, though.

Most rail staff on here post using an alias so their opinions aren't tied back to the company. The real-world equivalent is not gobbing off when in uniform in a public place.

If BA cabin crew do it they shouldn't either.

 

[contrex]

Maybe I should clarify that these men were wearing overcoats or parkas which covered up any company uniforms they might have been wearing, and it was only by their conversation among themselves, about work just done, colleagues and their duties, etc, overheard by me, that I was able to tell that they were clearly TOC employees and not, for example, rail fans. Maybe the average traveller would not have twigged that.

I would have regarded taking a video and forwarding it to the TOC as excessive in the circs.

I cannot help thinking that if things had been worse (visible uniform, rant definitely directed at or intended to be heard by a member of a despised group or minority) and it had been reported, and steps taken against the individual, such as disciplinary action, or an uncomfortable conversation with management, that the person might just feel that they had been brought low by the trainer-wearing hordes and their woke snowflake supporters, rather than seeing it as a wake-up call, attractive though that notion might be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Maybe I should clarify that these men were wearing overcoats or parkas which covered up any company uniforms they might have been wearing, and it was only by their conversation among themselves, about of work just done, colleagues and their duties, etc, overheard by me, that I was able to tell that they were clearly TOC employees and not, for example, rail fans. Maybe the average traveller would not have twigged that.

I would have regarded taking a video and forwarding it to the TOC as excessive in the circs.

I cannot help thinking that if things had been worse (visible uniform, rant definitely directed at or intended to be heard by a member of a despised group or minority) and it had been reported, and steps taken against the individual, such as disciplinary action, or an uncomfortable conversation with management, that the person might just feel that they had been brought low by the trainer-wearing hordes and their woke snowflake supporters, rather than seeing it as a wake-up call, attractive though that notion might be.

Almost everyone wears trainers other than commuters, and even they often do too if walking to the office, having shoes in their bag is common, so it's an odd prejudice.

 

[contrex]

Almost everyone wears trainers other than commuters, and even they often do too if walking to the office, having shoes in their bag is common, so it's an odd prejudice.

I mentioned my wife's uncle and his oddly similar views about suede shoes, and how they marked their wearers as deviant or dangerous, led to, or were signs of, the country's ruin, etc, and I now recall my own father's remarks about sandal-wearing, bearded, nut-cutlet eating socialists. Shoes mark the man, clearly, for some people.

 

[172007]

The member of staff is representing their company if wearing uniform or even declare who their employer is in a conversation irrespective of at work or not. Most probably be gross misconduct and the sack but really should be made to go on a course in diversity etc.

Big problems with these incidents is the collateral damage of the other employees in the conversation getting dragged into gross misconduct too by not steering or intervening in the conversation.

People do not realise how dangerous overheard conversations whether verbal or written on Internet are these days to your employability. People cab so easily discretely record conversation on mobile phones too.

 

[contrex]

Almost everyone wears trainers other than commuters, and even they often do too if walking to the office, having shoes in their bag is common, so it's an odd prejudice.

I suppose peoples' intolerances often seek something visible to latch onto, whether it be hairstyle, facial hair, shoes, hats, clothes, brand of car, style of jackets or jumper (hoodies anyone?). I myself have slight but detectable dislike of baseball caps.

 

[InkyScrolls]

Offence is taken, not given.

 

[nw1]

The member of staff is representing their company if wearing uniform or even declare who their employer is in a conversation irrespective of at work or not. Most probably be gross misconduct and the sack but really should be made to go on a course in diversity etc.

That would be much more useful than the sack, and would be an action I would wholeheartedly support. The sack, by contrast, is to me simply vengeful authoritarianism and serves little purpose. The person concerned is not going to improve as a human being if they get the sack; they'll probably retreat further into their angry-right-winger hole and keep spouting their hateful nonsense. In fact, if I knew the employer action would be something such as diversity education (rather than the sack), I would actually be much more inclined to report this sort of thing.

As I've said already, I consider what this person said exceedingly offensive and completely unacceptable. However the way to deal with wrongdoing of this sort is education, not spiteful revenge.

Just like, for example, community service is much more useful than prison for many crimes, vandalism being a particularly good example.

It should also be said that I have heard politicians come out with some comparably offensive stuff in the past few years, often directed against the same groups of people as in this case - yet little or no action is taken. One rule for the powerful, one rule for the "common person", it seems - yet, if the powerful endorse reactionary attitudes, that is actually much more dangerous, as they are seen as role-models by many.

 

[Meerkat]

Yes - but there is no actionable evidence. This is a "your word against his" situation. You could make a complaint but I am sure it would be denied by anyone involved.

If the people he was speaking with were fronted up by management with a "did he really say that" I wouldn't be surprised if they dropped him in it.
Firstly turning a blind eye is much easier than being given a choice of lying to management or not (and the "I'm not going to lie for you" can give a welcome excuse to those who will not 'grass' but disapprove).
Secondly loud mouths with loud opinions often find out that a lack of argument isn't the support they think it is, others just aren't willing to challenge them. Then something like this gets reported and it opens the floodgates to a load of other complaints.

 

[Bald Rick]

I’m pretty sure that cabin crew make derogatory remarks amongst themselves about some of the passengers?

I‘m sure they do. But probably not when they are aware that their customers are nearby. Although @AlterEgo may have evidence to the contrary!

 

[DarloRich]

If the people he was speaking with were fronted up by management with a "did he really say that" I wouldn't be surprised if they dropped him in it.
Firstly turning a blind eye is much easier than being given a choice of lying to management or not (and the "I'm not going to lie for you" can give a welcome excuse to those who will not 'grass' but disapprove).
Secondly loud mouths with loud opinions often find out that a lack of argument isn't the support they think it is, others just aren't willing to challenge them. Then something like this gets reported and it opens the floodgates to a load of other complaints.

Again: you have a greater faith in human nature than me! People often wont lie, they just wont "remember"

 

[Meerkat]

Again: you have a greater faith in human nature than me! People often wont lie, they just wont "remember"

If the questioning is soon enough the "don't remember" line wont be credible and will reflect badly on the one being questioned. And the lack of "they didn't say that and it isn't the sort of thing they would say" would mean the offender's card was very much marked, and the company might be prepared to take the "see you in court" risk.

Its one of the reasons public facing workers need union representation - for accusations like this the company can panic at the potential for bad publicity and push the boundaries of legality in order to be seen to act. They really don't want "Company X employs racists and doesn't care" headlines.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I'd give up pursuing that debate with @busestrains, remember, they were the same person who said Andrew Tate's ideology was reasonable.

Nevertheless, I agree entirely with what you have said.

The act of cancelling someone of saying something about Andrew Tate is as bad as what you don't like about them liking something Andrew Tate has said. The sooner we get our heads around this the better as a society.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The act of cancelling someone of saying something about Andrew Tate is as bad as what you don't like about them liking something Andrew Tate has said. The sooner we get our heads around this the better as a society.

Nobody has a right to be spoken to, and it is perfectly valid to decide you don't want to speak to someone because of a view they hold.

The whole "cancel" thing is more about official bodies doing it.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Nobody has a right to be spoken to, and it is perfectly valid to decide you don't want to speak to someone because of a view they hold.

The whole "cancel" thing is more about official bodies doing it.

Yep very true just don't expect to be listened to if you do it.

 

[AlterEgo]

I‘m sure they do. But probably not when they are aware that their customers are nearby. Although @AlterEgo may have evidence to the contrary!

Not when they are *aware* customers are listening but I’ve heard some very strange things on Galley FM in my time!

 

[contrex]

Offence is taken, not given.

I don't see how that can be so. If someone says something that gives offence to one or more other people, then the offence is, by definition, given.

 

[al78]

Indeed. Too many people don't know what freedom of speech even means. It's purely about your right to say something without being arrested by the state.

So, in that regard, yes someone could say such things and not be thrown in jail, but they could easily be sacked.

It seems to be a common misconception that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences or freedom from having your opinion challenged.

 

[VauxhallandI]

I don't see how that can be so. If someone says something that gives offence to one or more other people, then the offence is, by definition, given.

Don’t get that at all. It is the subject that takes offence.

Some won’t therefore it’s not given it’s only the receiver that makes the decision therefore they take it.

 

[contrex]

Don’t get that at all. It is the subject that takes offence.

Some won’t therefore it’s not given it’s only the receiver that makes the decision therefore they take it.

I'm sorry, but I consider that to be an empty quibble. Often quoted (from Ricky Gervais, that great sage) by free-speech warriors. While I would agree it is possible to behave as if something is far more offensive than most reasonable people would agree it is, this is a different issue than "offence is given not taken".

I would also agree with the notion that someone can stoically endure offensive behaviour, or speech and even with the idea that this is, for the individual, the least mentally stressful or distracting way of dealing with these things. This cannot mean that bad behaviour should not be called out, or should be suffered silently. Words and actions can betray sordid underlying attitudes. They can make people feel unwelcome. Saying that people should silently tolerate this emotional harm from offensive remarks because they control their own attitudes is like saying people should silently tolerate any harm or injustice, simply because they can.

 

[VauxhallandI]

“Free speech warriors” goodnight.

 

[the sniper]

Almost everyone wears trainers other than commuters, and even they often do too if walking to the office, having shoes in their bag is common, so it's an odd prejudice.

Sounds to me like a bloke who's gimmick it is to have a mad rant over nothing and the others knew it, hence why he was asked what is an otherwise rather random question. I wouldn't be surprised if he wear's trainers too and/or doesn't actually believe his own argument. I know these types, messroom performers, they like to put on a show to liven things up! Certainly doesn't look good on paper though...

 

[Segedunum]

When I worked on a gateline we were always told to watch what we were saying as passengers had previously reported staff for conversations they were having. When I said something along the lines of "oh sh*t" to a colleague once, a passenger on the other side of the concourse decided to lose the plot and scream at me to mind my language, I never made that mistake again

I've been on the other side of it too, once being sat in Coach K on a VTEC service. The First Class staff area door was wedged open and I was treated to staff discussing how passengers "take the p*ss" with complimentary items and how they didn't feel like they should have to serve after York. Rather unpleasant to hear from on-duty staff who are supposed to be serving you.

As for the OP's example - certainly not a wise move by the staff member involved, off-duty or not. Anything which could possibly bring your employer into disrepute was a big no and just about any job I've been in has told us that from the very beginning.

You'd be surprised at the number of people who'd vault ticket gates or be generally abusive in work uniform, though. I was always baffled by them!

 

[al78]

I've been on the other side of it too, once being sat in Coach K on a VTEC service. The First Class staff area door was wedged open and I was treated to staff discussing how passengers "take the p*ss" with complimentary items and how they didn't feel like they should have to serve after York. Rather unpleasant to hear from on-duty staff who are supposed to be serving you.

To be fair to the staff in question I can partly understand their attitude. I would guess there are many people out there who are willing to take liberties with complementary items and have an entitlement attitude with it. A public facing job must be tough and stressful and it takes a strong personality to not be emotionally broken down by it.