ASLEF push for more female and BAME drivers

[O L Leigh]

All for it, but what happens when it turns out the is no change in representation and that the job happens to appeal to the white middle aged men? Then what?

That is not an argument for doing nothing, though. Such policies have been shown to be effective in other supposedly male dominated sectors, such as law enforcement and the military. Are these industries now demographically balanced? No, and nor are they ever likely to be. But equality of opportunity has shown that the age-old barriers to entry no longer apply. The rail industry in general, and driving in particular, could use this approach very well.

And if the output of driver recruitment is still dominated by white, middle-aged men then so be it. At least the industry has shown itself to be open and welcoming to all. Ultimately the recruitment and selection is the business of the employers not the union, and it is they who will need to make this work (assuming they feel that it's a problem worth tackling, which they may not). But lets not write it all off as a bad lot just yet on the basis that it may become something or another until it's been tried.

But if you're trying to get me to a point where I say that I support positive discrimination, then I'm afraid you will be disappointed. I do not support any such approach and you would find me as opposed to it as I am to ASLEF's promotion of Employment Justified Retirement Age (EJRA). Equality of opportunity means just that; that everyone has the same chances to succeed in this industry no matter what demographic they fit, even if they are "male, pale and stale".

Again I don't think anyone cares who is driving the trains be it white men, women, BAME (i really hate this terminology) or any other group. It's just not important at all who is represented as long as the job goes on.

As I have said before, that is a perfectly good approach to have from a personal perspective. But, as I said up-thread, if you simply turn a blind eye to demographic information you have no way of knowing if discrimination exists because you have no way of knowing how diverse your workforce is. However distasteful you may feel it is, it has a valid place in many areas of life.

Very well said, the superior salaries of privatisation have unfortunately been a major contributor towards a lackadaisical culture amongst some management of adopting whatever suitability fad is in fashion with them at a particular time, safe in the knowledge they’ll receive loads of over qualified (on paper) applicants purely because of the wage levels & benefits alone

I suppose you have the whole equality discussion in all of it's manifestations down as a "fad" also. This is not a reason not to try and open up the industry to those who traditionally might not have considered a career.

 

[EM2]

I think that is very unfair to the current workforce. Personally my record absolutely speaks for itself, as a train driver ,I am a TOCs dream ,performance and attendance wise. What more do they want?? Maybe I'm not pretty enough??

And does the same go for everyone on your intake when you joined? Or everyone in your depot?

 

[EM2]

In order to hire more of x you have to be willing to reject a number of y,

The only way that would be true is if x score better than y. If y is good enough, they'll get through.

 

[Mag_seven]

Because a more diverse workforce, with a broader experience base and different mindsets and ways of approaching problems, is an asset in just about any industry. Including the railway.

Exactly - research has shown that the more diverse a workforce is the happier and more productive that they are. That fact doesn't stop people getting angry about this initiative though.

 

[deltic]

All for it, but what happens when it turns out the is no change in representation and that the job happens to appeal to the white middle aged men? Then what?

Again I don't think anyone cares who is driving the trains be it white men, women, BAME (i really hate this terminology) or any other group. It's just not important at all who is represented as long as the job goes on.

40% of HEX drivers are female. Why has anyone got a problem with people trying to increase diversity in the rest of the workforce while maintaining standards.

 

[Bellbell]

All for it, but what happens when it turns out the is no change in representation and that the job happens to appeal to the white middle aged men? Then what?

Again I don't think anyone cares who is driving the trains be it white men, women, BAME (i really hate this terminology) or any other group. It's just not important at all who is represented as long as the job goes on.

In this thread people have explained the lack of women in the post by suggesting that the hours put them off due to family commitments and/or that they have a lesser aptitude for the skills involved in driving trains. I disagree with that, but let's pretend for a minute it's correct, what do you suppose is preventing BAME men from joining the grade? Presumably they have the same family set up, generally speaking, as white men, and the same aptitude for train driving?

 

[irish_rail]

And does the same go for everyone on your intake when you joined? Or everyone in your depot?

Well on my intake two of the younger candidates did end up getting sacked (!

In this thread people have explained the lack of women in the post by suggesting that the hours put them off due to family commitments and/or that they have a lesser aptitude for the skills involved in driving trains. I disagree with that, but let's pretend for a minute it's correct, what do you suppose is preventing BAME men from joining the grade? Presumably they have the same family set up, generally speaking, as white men, and the same aptitude for train driving?

Absolutely. Seeing better numbers coming through now in the London area but still progress is needed here.

 

[GB]

Exactly - research has shown that the more diverse a workforce is the happier and more productive that they are. That fact doesn't stop people getting angry about this initiative though.

What research is this? Frankly and honestly I do not see a automatic link between diversity and a happy workforce. Its already been established traincrew do not care about the colour of ones skin, sex or their background, just that they can do the job. What affects peoples mood (and therefore happiness and productivity) and particularly on the railway, is the rosters, T&Cs and how they are treated by management and the company is general. BAME and diversity doesn't affect any of that.

 

[Mag_seven]

What research is this? Frankly and honestly I do not see a automatic link between diversity and a happy workforce

For example:

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3725

There's also a clear competitive advantage to be gained from employing a diverse workforce. An organisation with a diverse range of employees is well placed to understand the needs of a wide range of customers, and can interact with a broad client base. Not only that, but it is also in a good position to recruit and retain staff in an increasingly diverse and competitive labour market. Embedding diversity of thought throughout an organisation also means that talent can be properly recognised and nurtured - wherever it may be.

 

[GrimShady]

That is not an argument for doing nothing, though. Such policies have been shown to be effective in other supposedly male dominated sectors, such as law enforcement and the military. Are these industries now demographically balanced? No, and nor are they ever likely to be. But equality of opportunity has shown that the age-old barriers to entry no longer apply. The rail industry in general, and driving in particular, could use this approach very well.

And if the output of driver recruitment is still dominated by white, middle-aged men then so be it. At least the industry has shown itself to be open and welcoming to all. Ultimately the recruitment and selection is the business of the employers not the union, and it is they who will need to make this work (assuming they feel that it's a problem worth tackling, which they may not). But lets not write it all off as a bad lot just yet on the basis that it may become something or another until it's been tried.

But if you're trying to get me to a point where I say that I support positive discrimination, then I'm afraid you will be disappointed. I do not support any such approach and you would find me as opposed to it as I am to ASLEF's promotion of Employment Justified Retirement Age (EJRA). Equality of opportunity means just that; that everyone has the same chances to succeed in this industry no matter what demographic they fit, even if they are "male, pale and stale".

It's not necessarily an argument for changing the current dynamic either if its working well. I'm not trying to push you in any direction, its comforting to know you and I share the same thoughts positive discrimination.

Exactly - research has shown that the more diverse a workforce is the happier and more productive that they are. That fact doesn't stop people getting angry about this initiative though.

Not necessarily true, at least not in the Maritime world where multinational crews can (usually are) be a real headache and even dangerous. Trust me on this.

40% of HEX drivers are female. Why has anyone got a problem with people trying to increase diversity in the rest of the workforce while maintaining standards.

I don't think anyone does, the issue I see is the language being used and the insinuation there's something wrong with a majority white male workforce. The same accusation would never be made against an all minority workforce or female workforce. Glad you mentioned HEX, It would be interesting to what the KPIs, sickness, etc levels are vs a "standard" majority male depot. There has to be, in my view, a bonafide reason to be increasing/decreasing certain demographics and not just for the sake of experimentation.

In this thread people have explained the lack of women in the post by suggesting that the hours put them off due to family commitments and/or that they have a lesser aptitude for the skills involved in driving trains. I disagree with that, but let's pretend for a minute it's correct, what do you suppose is preventing BAME men from joining the grade? Presumably they have the same family set up, generally speaking, as white men, and the same aptitude for train driving?

Interesting question, I don't have an answer for you. Are you saying they don't work alongside white men?

What research is this? Frankly and honestly I do not see a automatic link between diversity and a happy workforce. Its already been established traincrew do not care about the colour of ones skin, sex or their background, just that they can do the job. What affects peoples mood (and therefore happiness and productivity) and particularly on the railway, is the rosters, T&Cs and how they are treated by management and the company is general. BAME and diversity doesn't affect any of that.

I can only speak from a Maritime background where we do have an extremely diverse workforce. Happiness at work has sod all to do with it. Working conditions, shift rotas, pay, ships amenities, T&Cs makes the difference here. It's interesting that this is coming from the unions and not the TOCs, if there really was that much benefit to it I think the TOCs would be all over it before the unions who are ultimately very political entities.

 

[Bellbell]

Interesting question, I don't have an answer for you. Are you saying they don't work alongside white men?

ASLEF's research is saying they're underrepresented. I'm not quite sure how to interpret your question. I don't think that it's OK for you to vociferously deny that there is a problem in the workforce and then say you don't know why a certain demographic is underrepresented with the implied shrugging of shoulders and 'what can you do' attitude evident here.

 

[Bellbell]

It's not necessarily an argument for changing the current dynamic either if its working well. I'm not trying to push you in any direction, its comforting to know you and I share the same thoughts positive discrimination.




Not necessarily true, at least not in the Maritime world where multinational crews can (usually are) be a real headache and even dangerous. Trust me on this.

Those of us on one side of the argument have been repeatedly told to provide evidence for our assertions in this thread. We wouldn't get away with saying 'trust me on this'.

I don't think anyone does, the issue I see is the language being used and the insinuation there's something wrong with a majority white male workforce. The same accusation would never be made against an all minority workforce or female workforce. Glad you mentioned HEX, It would be interesting to what the KPIs, sickness, etc levels are vs a "standard" majority male depot. There has to be, in my view, a bonafide reason to be increasing/decreasing certain demographics and not just for the sake of experimentation.

You say you have no problem and then you immediately start insinuating that HEX will have problems with their more inclusive workforce than other depots which have poorer diversity levels.

 

[GrimShady]

ASLEF's research is saying they're underrepresented. I'm not quite sure how to interpret your question. I don't think that it's OK for you to vociferously deny that there is a problem in the workforce and then say you don't know why a certain demographic is underrepresented with the implied shrugging of shoulders and 'what can you do' attitude evident here.

I have asked repeatedly if there is a problem with the workforce and been told no but there are "better" people out there, which I see as a complete contradiction. I don't work in the rail industry so I have no idea if there's an issue or not. I have not vociferously denied anything.

With regards to the question I asked, is it possible BAME individuals are not interested in the job unless they see a reduction in the current demographic?

 

[GrimShady]

Those of us on one side of the argument have been repeatedly told to provide evidence for our assertions in this thread. We wouldn't get away with saying 'trust me on this'.





You say you have no problem and then you immediately start insinuating that HEX will have problems with their more inclusive workforce than other depots which have poorer diversity levels.

The Maritime world isn't the topic for discussion. Happy to engage in this on another thread if you wish. If you do want to read into further, simply check out the literature online about the issues of multinational crews. Just bear in mind we have true diversity where English isn't the first language with completely different cultures interacting.

I said it would interesting to see the difference in values between Hex and norm. I haven't made any prediction's, preference or insinuations. I simply wondered what the data would show.

Your in a unique position here Bellbell so what's your view? What is the right percentage? In your opinion are women better drivers? Is an all male workforce an issue for you?

 

[O L Leigh]

It's not necessarily an argument for changing the current dynamic either if its working well.

No it's not. As I said before, neither side in this discussion has an objective argument to back it up.

You may call it political expediency or a fad, but for many years there has been a growing society-wide drive towards equality of opportunity. There's no reason why women or gay men can't be frontline soldiers as was the case before, no reason why women can't be police officers or why men can't be nurses or primary school teachers. You could say that there was no good reason to change any of these expectations either, and yet these have all been challenged and overcome. While the rail industry does not suffer with a recruitment crisis like some of these other professions, why shouldn't the status quo also be questioned and challenged? Why should the rail industry be allowed to continue as a bastion inequality? It doesn't have to be broken to be subject to scrutiny.

I don't think anyone does, the issue I see is the language being used and the insinuation there's something wrong with a majority white male workforce. The same accusation would never be made against an all minority workforce or female workforce.

I have asked repeatedly if there is a problem with the workforce and been told no but there are "better" people out there, which I see as a complete contradiction. I don't work in the rail industry so I have no idea if there's an issue or not. I have not vociferously denied anything.

If you are drawing that insinuation from your discussions yesterday with @EM2, then I fear it is an insinuation of your own making. What @EM2 was trying to explain was that by casting the net wider and attracting more applications you have a larger talent pool to draw from which clearly has advantages for the employer. I do not see anything in what has been said so far that suggests that there is any issue whatsoever with the current workforce or that female/BAME candidates would be in any way "better" than those of us currently in post. As I pointed out yesterday...

The phrases are being used against the current recruitment and selection standards, something that the current workforce will have all cleared at the time of their recruitment. What we're talking about here is recruiting people to join the existing workforce, not supplant it.

Glad you mentioned HEX, It would be interesting to what the KPIs, sickness, etc levels are vs a "standard" majority male depot. There has to be, in my view, a bonafide reason to be increasing/decreasing certain demographics and not just for the sake of experimentation.

From what I understand about Heathrow Express, they operate in a different way to every other TOC in that their staff have a dual role and split their time between driving and on-train duties. This may have a bearing on why the gender mix is as reported.

As for measuring outputs from rail companies, productivity and so on are not measured in the same way as other industries in that there are not KPIs, etc. That said, I have never heard anything to suggest that Heathrow Express is anything other than a happy ship. It may be that many use them as a "starter TOC" before moving on elsewhere as qualified drivers, such as GWR, but you'd have to wait for someone more closely associated with that area to give their impressions.​

 

[GrimShady]

No it's not. As I said before, neither side in this discussion has an objective argument to back it up.

You may call it political expediency or a fad, but for many years there has been a growing society-wide drive towards equality of opportunity. There's no reason why women or gay men can't be frontline soldiers as was the case before, no reason why women can't be police officers or why men can't be nurses or primary school teachers. You could say that there was no good reason to change any of these expectations either, and yet these have all been challenged and overcome. While the rail industry does not suffer with a recruitment crisis like some of these other professions, why shouldn't the status quo also be questioned and challenged? Why should the rail industry be allowed to continue as a bastion inequality? It doesn't have to be broken to be subject to scrutiny.





If you are drawing that insinuation from your discussions yesterday with @EM2, then I fear it is an insinuation of your own making. What @EM2 was trying to explain was that by casting the net wider and attracting more applications you have a larger talent pool to draw from which clearly has advantages for the employer. I do not see anything in what has been said so far that suggests that there is any issue whatsoever with the current workforce or that female/BAME candidates would be in any way "better" than those of us currently in post. As I pointed out yesterday...

From what I understand about Heathrow Express, they operate in a different way to every other TOC in that their staff have a dual role and split their time between driving and on-train duties. This may have a bearing on why the gender mix is as reported.

As for measuring outputs from rail companies, productivity and so on are not measured in the same way as other industries in that there are not KPIs, etc. That said, I have never heard anything to suggest that Heathrow Express is anything other than a happy ship. It may be that many use them as a "starter TOC" before moving on elsewhere as qualified drivers, such as GWR, but you'd have to wait for someone more closely associated with that area to give their impressions.​

Fair enough

Sorry but I strongly disagree here. I already responded saying I fully understood the desire to cast a wider net. Others here have taken the same insinuation that I have, intended or otherwise.

That's a very interesting point, I wasn't aware of HEX having dual roles. Its been shown before women prefer occupations with a social aspect.

 

[O L Leigh]

Sorry but I strongly disagree here. I already responded saying I fully understood the desire to cast a wider net. Others here have taken the same insinuation that I have, intended or otherwise.

That is not something that I nor anyone else can help. I'm sorry you don't see the intentions behind what's being said in the same way. However, I stand by my position that I see no slight against the current workforce, and I speak from my position as one of the "male, pale and stale".

 

[O L Leigh]

Having re-read the last three pages again, I fear that you are labouring under a misapprehension that is colouring your view of this discussion.

The insinuation that the union is only pushing for this because there must be a problem with the current workforce (apart from it's demographic make-up) and wishes to drive up the quality of the candidates has actually come from yourself in your desire to understand the reasoning behind it. While others have explained that expanding the recruitment programme and driving up numbers of applicants is to the advantage of the employer, it is you who is repeatedly demanding to know what's wrong with the current workforce that needs to be urgently addressed. No answer to this question has been forthcoming because there is nothing wrong with the current workforce (again, apart from it's demographic make-up) and because these other members are referring solely to the recruitment and selection process and the quality of candidates.

Lets be clear, this is not slight against the current workforce. There has been no change to the recruitment and selection standards, no drop-off in performance and no issues with morale that aren't linked with the employer's own conduct. The bar to entry is set at an appropriate height as defined by the Railway Safety & Standards Board (RSSB) and to get into the grade everyone has to clear it no matter who or what they are. You are tested on personality, aptitude and character as well as being assessed on more prosaic matters, such as willingness to work shifts. Every single one of us in the driving grade had to pass such tests as were in force at the time of our recruitment, so we are all of an equivalent level of suitability no matter when we were recruited.

You accept that there are no objective reasons on either side of this argument and yet you hang onto this belief that the union is trying to undermine it's own membership. This simply isn't the case. If other members have been clumsy with their words in trying to explain this to you and lead you to this misapprehension then I can only apologise on their behalf, but I will say again that it is a misapprehension. Nobody has stated that the industry is being encouraged to look for candidates that are better than the existing workforce. If you believe that they have then perhaps you can quote them (in context) and give the authors the opportunity to explain precisely what they mean.

 

[306024]

This has made the lead story on BBC Look East tonight, with a bit of filming at Southend Victoria.

The ASLEF document runs to 42 pages with a lot of detail and will make an interesting read for anyone involved in the recruitment and employment process, not just in the rail industry.

Haven’t read it all yet but one statement that leapt off the page was that train driving has the lowest gender pay gap (0.7%) of any occupation in the UK. The national average is 18.4%. The 0.7% gap is explained by more women than men working part time.

 

[irish_rail]

This has made the lead story on BBC Look East tonight, with a bit of filming at Southend Victoria.

The ASLEF document runs to 42 pages with a lot of detail and will make an interesting read for anyone involved in the recruitment and employment process, not just in the rail industry.

Haven’t read it all yet but one statement that leapt off the page was that train driving has the lowest gender pay gap (0.7%) of any occupation in the UK. The national average is 18.4%. The 0.7% gap is explained by more women than men working part time.

So why are aslef not shouting this from the roof tops. A success story and something the industry should be proud of.

 

[306024]

Quite agree it is something to be proud of. ASLEF have made the national press and local TV but inevitably the media presentation has dwelt on the negatives, although to be fair the very low gender pay gap was mentioned on the TV tonight in this part of the world.

 

[158756]

Haven’t read it all yet but one statement that leapt off the page was that train driving has the lowest gender pay gap (0.7%) of any occupation in the UK. The national average is 18.4%. The 0.7% gap is explained by more women than men working part time.

Within a TOC, or other separation that exists for historical reasons, roughly speaking train drivers are all the same grade, work the same hours and don't individually negotiate pay, so it would be surprising if any major gap existed. The rail industry as a whole is a very different story.

Drivers are on substantially more than the average salary and the vast majority are male, which is the sort of thing picked up in the overall national figure or company or industry figures.

Virgin Trains, as an example have a gap of 24.83%, which will predominantly be because there are very few women in the higher paid (i.e driving) jobs. Go Ahead Rail's is slightly better at 21%, but probably that's only because they have fewer non driving staff than Virgin - just 17.8% of their total staff are women, 5.5% of drivers.