2nd Jobs?

[neuralnet]

To me the approach of the poster you quoted’s employer sounds fairly reasonable. The employee has been honest, the employer has engaged with their request and accommodated it in a way that manages risk.



One poster has said he works on a heritage railway in a way that his employer is aware of. If people have serious enough incidents almost anything will be considered relevant. For me I wouldn’t want to take the risk of not disclosing it and it somehow coming out later.

You mentioned having no possibility of a pay rise, is there no opportunity to take on overtime shifts in the main job?

I'm not persuaded. The management action sounded more like punishment to me. 4 months doing some inane drudgery and then nothing after. Is that managing risk? Sounds more like management saying "I disapprove of what you're doing, here's the punishment so that you know (and everyone else will know) never to tell me about this again - I don't want any blame if things go wrong."

I'm certain the investigating authorities would ask about fatigue for every incident they evaluate. My point was whether somebodies choices of how they choose to spend their time off can necessarily be described as adding to their fatigue, even if it is paid work it's not clear cut. For example my home life is very peaceful, I don't have any kids (pros and cons to that) and therefore 12 hours between shifts is actually overkill for me personally. I feel way over rested for my shifts. Now someone else's circumstances with a new born baby or numerous kids or caring for relatives or whatever is definitely different and you could even argue that 12 hours at home for them - far from relieving fatigue - adds to their fatigue before they then start their next shift. It's not a simple concept fatigue and as I said, everyone is different and circumstances matter. The industry should help people recognise fatigue rather than trying to restrict activities or micromanage with some bad, universal view of what fatigue is.

Unfortunately, there's no prospect of me doing any overtime.

 

[Horizon22]

I'm not persuaded. The management action sounded more like punishment to me. 4 months doing some inane drudgery and then nothing after. Is that managing risk? Sounds more like management saying "I disapprove of what you're doing, here's the punishment so that you know (and everyone else will know) never to tell me about this again - I don't want any blame if things go wrong."

I'm certain the investigating authorities would ask about fatigue for every incident they evaluate. My point was whether somebodies choices of how they choose to spend their time off can necessarily be described as adding to their fatigue, even if it is paid work it's not clear cut. For example my home life is very peaceful, I don't have any kids (pros and cons to that) and therefore 12 hours between shifts is actually overkill for me personally. I feel way over rested for my shifts. Now someone else's circumstances with a new born baby or numerous kids or caring for relatives or whatever is definitely different and you could even argue that 12 hours at home for them - far from relieving fatigue - adds to their fatigue before they then start their next shift. It's not a simple concept fatigue and as I said, everyone is different and circumstances matter. The industry should help people recognise fatigue rather than trying to restrict activities or micromanage with some bad, universal view of what fatigue is.

4 months of monitoring is what it sounds like, not "inane drudgery". Once its confirmed there were no side-effects throughout a reasonable time horizon, that has probably satisified the matter. It would be complacent not to monitor it to be honest.

You are correct that fatigue is ALWAYS investigated in any incident (see any RAIB report) even if it isn't causal factor in the incident. And you are of course correct that your home life situation (e.g new born child and building works nearby) might be more likely to lead to fatigue than a few hours in an additional job.

This is why taking a 2nd job - if allowed by your company - is always subject to "management approval" or some such wording because each personal circumstance will be different. And it would have to be validly justified so that if another employee wants it and gets a different outcome, it can be fairly explained as to why.

 

[ComUtoR]

I don't think you are asking for advice, you are asking for permission.

These company policies exist for a reason. If you choose to break them or flat out ignore them, then you accept any consequences.

I wish you well with whatever decision you make and I hope you get through these difficult times.

 

[nom de guerre]

I work in the rail industry (I don't want to say what my job is) but the cost of living squeeze is really biting for me. I've been actively considering for sometime the possibility of getting a second job.

I've checked my contract carefully and it says nothing about this. However I'm cognisant that I have a safety critical role and that I need to manage for fatigue very carefully and sensibly.

I know there will be lots of people criticising me and saying that doing this is wrong but I am professional and having considered all of the options available to me this option is the only one that I can reasonably consider. My railway job just doesn't pay enough (and there's no expectation this can increase).

I would seriously like to have this discussion and see what the general consensus is. Will add a poll too.

I realise this is neither a short-term nor guaranteed solution, but going forwards, is there no possibility of moving to a better-paid railway job in Kent (or further afield, if the average 12 hour rest you say you currently get between shifts is, to paraphrase your words, more than enough)?

I ask this as a safety critical railway worker who lives in Kent (but commutes elsewhere).

 

[Sly Sloth]

I'm not persuaded. The management action sounded more like punishment to me. 4 months doing some inane drudgery and then nothing after. Is that managing risk? Sounds more like management saying "I disapprove of what you're doing, here's the punishment so that you know (and everyone else will know) never to tell me about this again - I don't want any blame if things go wrong."

I'm certain the investigating authorities would ask about fatigue for every incident they evaluate. My point was whether somebodies choices of how they choose to spend their time off can necessarily be described as adding to their fatigue, even if it is paid work it's not clear cut. For example my home life is very peaceful, I don't have any kids (pros and cons to that) and therefore 12 hours between shifts is actually overkill for me personally. I feel way over rested for my shifts. Now someone else's circumstances with a new born baby or numerous kids or caring for relatives or whatever is definitely different and you could even argue that 12 hours at home for them - far from relieving fatigue - adds to their fatigue before they then start their next shift. It's not a simple concept fatigue and as I said, everyone is different and circumstances matter. The industry should help people recognise fatigue rather than trying to restrict activities or micromanage with some bad, universal view of what fatigue is.

Unfortunately, there's no prospect of me doing any overtime.

If you had an incident the 1st few questions are….
did you get sufficient rest between shifts?
have you had your break?
is there anything outside of work causing an issue?

If it came out you had a second job they’d lay blame here
If it was found that you hadn’t had 12 hours between finishing that job and booking on then you’d be in a real heap of trouble!

but……regardless of any advice posted on here it’s your decision

 

[matt_world2004]

If your on a zero hours contract the railway cannot legally prevent you from taking a second job.

 

[muz379]

My point was whether somebodies choices of how they choose to spend their time off can necessarily be described as adding to their fatigue, even if it is paid work it's not clear cut.

Personally I think it is clear cut .My intepretation of policy in my employment is that I am responsible for ensuring that I do everything within my power to ensure that I am prepared for duty . And I find out when my duties are enough in advanced to ensure I can practically do this .

So if I am on a 4am turn , and decide that I am going to conciously make the decision to socialise with friends until midnight and get 3 hours sleep before getting up at 3am to go to work . And as a result of being fatigued I make a decision in my safety critical role that puts someone in danger I would absoloutely expect to have to answer difficult questions about why I did not prepare for duty .

Where I work at least it matterns not if it is paid employment , volunteering on a heritage railway or just socialising any concious act that leads to you not being properly prepared for duty would result in you having difficult questions to answer / potentially facing a development plan of disciplinary action .And I think that is quite right , it should not matter if you have been earning money doing it or not , it is the impact that is the important consideration in my view .

 

[neuralnet]

Personally I think it is clear cut .My intepretation of policy in my employment is that I am responsible for ensuring that I do everything within my power to ensure that I am prepared for duty . And I find out when my duties are enough in advanced to ensure I can practically do this .

So if I am on a 4am turn , and decide that I am going to conciously make the decision to socialise with friends until midnight and get 3 hours sleep before getting up at 3am to go to work . And as a result of being fatigued I make a decision in my safety critical role that puts someone in danger I would absoloutely expect to have to answer difficult questions about why I did not prepare for duty .

Where I work at least it matterns not if it is paid employment , volunteering on a heritage railway or just socialising any concious act that leads to you not being properly prepared for duty would result in you having difficult questions to answer / potentially facing a development plan of disciplinary action .And I think that is quite right , it should not matter if you have been earning money doing it or not , it is the impact that is the important consideration in my view .

I don't actually disagree with any of that. It someone is reckless with their spare time or seems clearly unprepared for work they should have to explain that and face serious consequences for it.