Declassified first class and staff use.

[Bletchleyite]

It's more akin to a receptionist taking a personal phone call

I don't agree. A personal phone call isn't impinging on other people in the vicinity of them any more than a professional phone call which they would be expected to make/take.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2025 ==

The bylaw regarding playing music/sound to the annoyance of any person is so rarely enforced (I have never heard of it before enforced, but I'm sure it's happened at some point) it may as well not exist. The bylaw actually creates an offence of singing if even one person is annoyed by it.

It does exist and thus staff need to comply to it. It's that simple. Breaking the law (however minor) when representing your employer in full uniform is a serious matter.

I would probably equate it to them smoking or vaping next to me. The level of annoyance is about the same, while the direct health effect of that being done very briefly would be low.

 

[styles]

I don't agree. A personal phone call isn't impinging on other people in the vicinity of them any more than a professional phone call which they would be expected to make/take.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Sep 2025 ==

Both are an inconvenience, not a safety matter. They're pretty similar.

It does exist and thus staff need to comply to it. It's that simple. Breaking the law (however minor) when representing your employer in full uniform is a serious matter.

I would probably equate it to them smoking or vaping next to me. The level of annoyance is about the same, while the direct health effect of that being done very briefly would be low.

Second hand smoke kills people. It's been a general criminal offence to smoke on indoors for decades. Playing music doesn't kill people - it's inconvenient. Equating it with smoking on a train, which is a safety issue as well as a health problem, is wild.

I'm not even convinced these are serious posts to be honest, but I'll leave it there as we clearly have different opinions on how to handle staff making inconveniences.

 

[zwk500]

I reminded him in no uncertain terms who pays his wages

I'd like to think he'd have known he was paid by Govia Thameslink Railway, if he was working for them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn’t like to be called out by a complete stranger complaining to my employer.

Then don't do something that's obviously antisocial

 

[Fokx]

I think that's a stretch honestly.

Breaking one rule which is aimed at passenger comfort is not the same as a significant safety breach.

It's more akin to a receptionist taking a personal phone call - a polite word or even a formal complaint, sure, but there's no need to patronise people with phrases like, remember who pays your wages.

Indeed

I'm not implying it, quite the opposite, I'm explicitly stating it. If you consider it OK to break one of your employer's rules, one that is considered serious important to be stated in law, which other ones might you also be willing to break?

It is also an offense to sing on the railway without express written permission. I'll remember that one next time there's a concert or a football match on and have everyone arrested and charged

I might even declare myself unfit to for duty next time I'm in a good mood and have a tune stuck in my head.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Second hand smoke kills people. It's been a general criminal offence to smoke on indoors for decades. Playing music doesn't kill people - it's inconvenient. Equating it with smoking on a train, which is a safety issue as well as a health problem, is wild.

I don't think it's wild to suggest that certain types of noise can be more disruptive to, say, an autistic person, than a bit of cigarette smoke.

In the end it's not acceptable conduct and it's a Byelaw breach, thus collecting evidence to make a formal complaint is fair game.

 

[styles]

I don't think it's wild to suggest that certain types of noise can be more disruptive to, say, an autistic person, than a bit of cigarette smoke.

In the end it's not acceptable conduct and it's a Byelaw breach, thus collecting evidence to make a formal complaint is fair game.

Do you support the notion of "reminding him in no uncertain terms who pays his wages"?

 

[bramling]

As a driver I’ll openly admit I have very little knowledge of railway byelaws. I wouldn’t like to be called out by a complete stranger complaining to my employer. Instead I agree with the sensible approach to talk to the person directly and ask them to quieten down, use earphones, outline the error of their ways etc.

That’s fine as far as it goes, however one wouldn’t get far claiming ignorance if, for example, on the receiving end of a dispute about revenue, to use a railway example.

But in the case of something as egregious as playing music out loud (note I’m not talking about being a bit loud through headphones without realising it, for example), whether it happens to be a byelaw offence or not is a bit secondary, it’s just useful to be able to have the legal position as a backup.

Incidentally, I didn’t actually report the member of staff. However I made it clear I had the evidence to do so if required.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

My first instinct would simply be to have a polite word and ask them to turn it down / put headphones on etc, as I would any other person doing the same thing. The fact that they are in uniform is of no particular consequence to me, the annoyance is the same regardless of whether they are in uniform.


For some reason I'll never understand, some people just prefer to create drama, and to feel superior to people.

Such people tend to find themselves in positions such as Security Guards, Traffic Wardens, Police Officers or in some cases, ironically, various roles on the railway...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you support the notion of "reminding him in no uncertain terms who pays his wages"?

I would be unlikely to do that (though I probably would ask for it to be turned off, and the response to that request would inform how seriously I would take the formal complaint part) but I think it's a bit neither here nor there, and it is accurate in the sense that the offence being committed is one that is intended to ensure the comfort of passengers, which is why I see it as so serious - after safety, the highest priority of all staff should be the comfort, enjoyment and convenience of those who are paying their fares to travel on the railway, as without any of them (aside from extreme scenarios like COVID) the railway would not exist.

TL;DR? Probably wouldn't say it myself but I think it's trivial and irrelevant compared to the offence itself which staff really should know better than to commit while in uniform so I wouldn't care less if another person did.

 

[MagisterLudi]

Perhaps I’ve a different outlook on life; a polite conversation with someone can nip a problem in the bud without the need to escalate to threatening people with their jobs.

if only rail unions took such a diplomatic and non-escalatory attitude to matters where they feel their membership have been wronged.

 

[Bletchleyite]

if only rail unions took such a diplomatic and non-escalatory attitude to matters where they feel their membership have been wronged.

Or if only the railway took a slightly more reasonable line with regard to enforcing ticketing related Byelaws where passengers clearly haven't been trying it on.

 

[styles]

If only passengers took a slightly more reasonable line with regard to staff watching videos on their phones in their downtime.

 

[MagisterLudi]

Or if only the railway took a slightly more reasonable line with regard to enforcing ticketing related Byelaws where passengers clearly haven't been trying it on.

Precisely. Who'd have thought that members of the public who are subjected to the consequences of such behaviour might give as good they get. Then again, this is the railway after all.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

if only rail unions took such a diplomatic and non-escalatory attitude to matters where they feel their membership have been wronged.

Or if only the railway took a slightly more reasonable line with regard to enforcing ticketing related Byelaws where passengers clearly haven't been trying it on.

Pointless whataboutery!

 

[MagisterLudi]

Pointless whataboutery!

Nope. If you down tools for the most spurious of perceived rule infractions, you suffer the consequences when you break your own rules. Amazing how the wagons circle when the boot is on the other foot, however.

 

[styles]

Precisely. Who'd have thought that members of the public who are subjected to the consequences of such behaviour might give as good they get. Then again, this is the railway after all.

I note that this comment originally said antagnositic behaviour, which was then edited out.

I was about to comment about how ridiculous such a description is, but seems not necessary.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If only passengers took a slightly more reasonable line with regard to staff watching videos on their phones in their downtime.

They're welcome to watch videos on their phones, either with the volume turned off or headphones on.

Playing sound from devices out loud is antisocial behaviour. Under no circumstances should staff engage in antisocial behaviour while representing their employer, and if they do they should expect the matter to be reported. If I did that while representing my employer I'd expect to be in a lot of bother.

 

[styles]

Two wrongs don't make a right etc.

It is valid to hold the belief that the rail industry should have a sympathetic approach to genuine ticketing errors on the behalf of passengers, while also recognising that somebody watching a video without headphones should probably be asked to be considerate of other passengers, rather than given patronising comments about 'who pays their wages'.

Think I'm done with this one though, clearly not going to agree

 

[MagisterLudi]

I note that this comment originally said antagnositic behaviour, which was then edited out.

I was about to comment about how ridiculous such a description is, but seems not necessary.

yet you still chose to comment.

 

[Goldfish62]

Reminds me of an incident a few years ago on a Metrolink tram that got posted on social media. A TfGM employee slagging off Metrolink to a friend in a loud voice, including saying how useless the management were (of which he was one!).

Unsurprisingly he got the sack for gross misconduct.

 

[Fokx]

If you down tools for the most spurious of perceived rule infractions, you suffer the consequences when you break your own rules. Amazing how the wagons circle when the boot is on the other foot, however.

Can you give an example of this?

 

[MagisterLudi]

Can you give an example of this?

Can you give an example of this?

Probably. Would you like a list of all the industrial action taken over the years and, if provided, how do you plan to respond other than the wagon circling we've seen already?

 

[styles]

The idea that politely asking somebody to turn their music down instead of remind them of 'who pays their wages' is wagon circling is pure jokes.

 

[Tester]

The idea that politely asking somebody to turn their music down instead of remind them of 'who pays their wages' is wagon circling is pure jokes.

We get the message!

 

[MagisterLudi]

The idea that politely asking somebody to turn their music down instead of remind them of 'who pays their wages' is wagon circling is pure jokes.

The idea that a passenger is not well within their rights to report/video staff who are breaking the rules to which they work is also "pure jokes"...

 

[Fokx]

Probably. Would you like a list of all the industrial action taken over the years and, if provided, how do you plan to respond other than the wagon circling we've seen already?

Absolutely, but industrial action taken by a railway union specifically in relation to perceived rule infractions.

I'll await the reply, I can't comment if I have no idea what you're referring to hence me asking for an example

 

[Bletchleyite]

The idea that politely asking somebody to turn their music down instead of remind them of 'who pays their wages' is wagon circling is pure jokes.

While I doubt I would use the phrase mentioned (though I may well say something like "as a member of staff in uniform you should know better" if the response from them to the request wasn't polite and immediate) I think one forfeits one's right to be dealt with politely when one acts antisocially.

 

[styles]

Ironically, wagon circling the railway employee abuser.

 

[MagisterLudi]

Ironically, wagon circling the railway employee abuser.

The threshold for "abuse" is fairly high (but seemingly not for railway employees). Fancy giving an example from the thread?