Driver testing

[HowardGWR]

We are reeling from the reports emanating from Spain at the same time that the Italian sea captain is trying to 'cut a deal' on his sentence.

My question to our driver colleagues on here is

a) how many times per week are you tested for alcohol or other drugs?

b) how many times are you professionally interviewed for psychological issues (marriage break up and the like)? Do you undergo these tests before being allowed to train?

c)would a post on here boasting about rule bending lead to dismissal if discovered or reported?

Most obliged if you feel able to reply.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

a) 0, but I can be randomly tested at any time and will be tested following a safety of the line incident.

b) 0

c) Probably.

 

[GB]

I would imagine C would depend on the rule being bent and the individuals record. Might not get the sack but it wont do your career any favours.

 

[TDK]

We are reeling from the reports emanating from Spain at the same time that the Italian sea captain is trying to 'cut a deal' on his sentence.

My question to our driver colleagues on here is

a) how many times per week are you tested for alcohol or other drugs?

b) how many times are you professionally interviewed for psychological issues (marriage break up and the like)? Do you undergo these tests before being allowed to train?

c)would a post on here boasting about rule bending lead to dismissal if discovered or reported?

Most obliged if you feel able to reply.

a. Random testing has to test 5% of the depot over an annual period, I have been random tested on 5 occasions.

b, You are always encouraged to approach a manager if you have issues outside of work, managers are trained in recognising changes in people and acting on their behaviour is it changes.

c. Yes if it was discovered and the wording isn't would but could, in other words it is a possibility.

 

[HowardGWR]

a. Random testing has to test 5% of the depot over an annual period, I have been random tested on 5 occasions.

b, You are always encouraged to approach a manager if you have issues outside of work, managers are trained in recognising changes in people and acting on their behaviour is it changes.

c. Yes if it was discovered and the wording isn't would but could, in other words it is a possibility.

That's very helpful TDK, thanks. I have a feeling, I know it's uncomfortable, but I think under b) it would be reasonable for a member of staff to approach a manager if he was uneasy about the mental state of a colleague. It might be seen as snitching but I feel safety is just too important to take a chance.

If all staff knew that was part of the deal, that would take away any personal mistrust issues.

On substances, you did not mention any specific one such as cocaine (perhaps the most dangerous as it gives a heightened sense of 'power' I understand). Bearing in mind how the Heck outrage was caused, do tests take place on people on a very early turn who might still be full of the skinful they had at 2300?

 

[Tomnick]

Bearing in mind how the Heck outrage was caused, do tests take place on people on a very early turn who might still be full of the skinful they had at 2300?

Have I missed the connection between Great Heck and drugs or alcohol?

 

[jopsuk]

I doon't think you have. I think he's confused. Great Heck was caused by a fatigued car driver- pretty sure there was no drugs or alcohol involved even with him. The drivers and indeed "the railway" was blameless.

 

[Monty]

On substances, you did not mention any specific one such as cocaine (perhaps the most dangerous as it gives a heightened sense of 'power' I understand). Bearing in mind how the Heck outrage was caused, do tests take place on people on a very early turn who might still be full of the skinful they had at 2300?

To my knowledge they test for most known illegal narcotics in addition to alcohol and other drugs which are readily available over the counter or on prescription. You can be tested at anytime, I have been test at 0430 in the morning before booking on and I have known colleagues to have been tested at all hours into the night and during the day.

I'm not sure what you are getting at about the Great Heck crash, drugs were not a factor that caused the accident, fatigue of the driver of the Landrover was.

 

[AlexS]

I think you're reading into the personal issues things a bit much. It's like any other job in that if you think there is something up with a colleague, depending on the circumstances and how well you know them etc, you might talk to them directly. If you feel they're acting erratically, you might talk to a supervisor.

There also tends to be an honesty policy about alcoholism for example - if you tell the company you have a problem, they'll take you away from unsuitable posts for a period of time to try and get yourself sorted out. The intention being that you tell them and get it sorted before it causes a problem rather than try and hide it.

If you're under the influence at work and it's that obvious you'll tend to be dismissed though.

 

[DD]

A) tested at random, after any incident, every medical, if suspected or being under the influence or out of character etc.

B) your never interviewed for personal reasons, but if a manager notices your out of character they will talk to you etc, if any one has any issues that could effect them at work they are encouraged to speak to their driver manager. And you will be placed on other duties if needed etc.

C) yes it certainly would be investigated

 

[Mintona]

I recently went through a break-up and I spoke to my manager before my next turn of duty, he told me that I should go off sick for a while to clear my head as 'you can always improve your attendance record but you can never improve your safety record'. He didn't actually relieve me of duty though, and I decided not to take time off as I felt confident in my own ability to drive trains safely. Maybe that was a bad decision but I haven't had any issues because of it.

 

[rebmcr]

From what I recall reading in some RAIB/HMRI reports, there's an informal cursory evaluation performed by managers when drivers sign on in-person. Basically "Do they look drunk/can I smell alcohol".

 

[Vicpaul]

Never been randomly tested since 2000 when i joined the railways. Tested only at medicals and after a one under (I was not driving)

Again you should approach your manager with any issues your having, they have a duty of care. However this doesn't necessarily solve anything

And of course depending how its iterpreted

 

[GB]

From what I recall reading in some RAIB/HMRI reports, there's an informal cursory evaluation performed by managers when drivers sign on in-person. Basically "Do they look drunk/can I smell alcohol".

Many companies (mine included) use remote book on systems. So its not always easy for management to assess staff at sign on.

 

[broadgage]

Train drivers and other safety critical staff can be drug and alcohol tested at any time, at random (unlike car drivers who are only meant to be tested if there are grounds for suspicion)

After any safety related incident it would be normal to test the driver, and any other safety critical staff immediatly.

I have witnessed this once, long ago when a train driver was observed to be drinking from a beer bottle.
The train was stopped at the next station and the driver breath tested by the local police* The test was negative, and the driver stated that he often reused beer bottles for drinking water.
The drivers bag was searched and found to contain a second beer bottle, also full of water.
I was asked to make a statement to the police confirming that I had seen the driver fill beer bottles from a water tap.

I think that a notice was circulated after this advising against the reuse of beer bottles etc for water.

*I think that this would normaly be done by the BTP, but no such were nearby and it fell to the local police.

 

[TDK]

Many companies (mine included) use remote book on systems. So its not always easy for management to assess staff at sign on.

There is a group standard that quotes that 20% (on average) of all employees booking on remotely must be checked visually by a manager this can either be early or late shifts. However when you do book on you are signing a legal document that you are fit for duty as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think you're reading into the personal issues things a bit much. It's like any other job in that if you think there is something up with a colleague, depending on the circumstances and how well you know them etc, you might talk to them directly. If you feel they're acting erratically, you might talk to a supervisor.

There also tends to be an honesty policy about alcoholism for example - if you tell the company you have a problem, they'll take you away from unsuitable posts for a period of time to try and get yourself sorted out. The intention being that you tell them and get it sorted before it causes a problem rather than try and hide it.

If you're under the influence at work and it's that obvious you'll tend to be dismissed though.

If I found someone who I suspected was not fit for duty I would tell them to go home, phone in sick or whatever, if they declined I would grass them to the manager.

 

[HowardGWR]

On the Heck incident I apologise if I gave the wrong impression. I cited it as an example of a driver (car, train, what difference does it make -he still caused deaths?) as someone who had not had sufficient sleep (well, none) but still drove. The same could be the case with a train driver. My general rail point was about the controls on train drivers. I'm a bit concerned about the driver who has told us he has never been tested since he joined in 2000.

I think this evidence alone is sufficient evidence for a full scale hit on TOC's to see who is looking after safety and who is not. It would be good if there was a whistle blower number or email that drivers (and conductors) could contact in confidence).

It's no good reacting with 'it has been OK up to now' (even if true). Such controls are in everyone's interest. I have great respect for the professionalism of our drivers, as evidenced recently in the excellent documentaries.

 

[ainsworth74]

It would be good if there was a whistle blower number or email that drivers (and conductors) could contact in confidence).

There already is

 

[Mintona]

I've never been tested either, except for medicals. I don't really think it's needed to be honest, I don't know of a single driver who would dare risk their job for the sake of a drink.

 

[HowardGWR]

I've never been tested either, except for medicals. I don't really think it's needed to be honest, I don't know of a single driver who would dare risk their job for the sake of a drink.

It's good to hear but it should not be left to you. I am sorry but that is a safety fact.

This is an excellent discussion and hopefully will result in stronger controls. I am sure Mintona would not object. I would be happier, were I a driver, if I were subjected to them.

 

[Tomnick]

Why do we need stronger controls? When did we last have a rail accident in this country where drink or drugs was even a casual factor?

 

[Monty]

It's good to hear but it should not be left to you. I am sorry but that is a safety fact.

This is an excellent discussion and hopefully will result in stronger controls. I am sure Mintona would not object. I would be happier, were I a driver, if I were subjected to them.

The current measures in place are more than adequate for the time being.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I've never been tested either, except for medicals. I don't really think it's needed to be honest, I don't know of a single driver who would dare risk their job for the sake of a drink.

I can absolutely assure you they are out there, and before anybody asks, no he isn't a driver any more.

 

[E&W Lucas]

It's good to hear but it should not be left to you. I am sorry but that is a safety fact.

This is an excellent discussion and hopefully will result in stronger controls. I am sure Mintona would not object. I would be happier, were I a driver, if I were subjected to them.

Agree, there is no need for stronger controls. Those of us who are saying that, are in the front line every day. We do not see people under the influence. If we did, we would tell them to **** off home; none of us, want to be around someone who is unfit for work.

In answer to your original questions:

a. 10% of workforce tested at random. Have been tested about 5 times in my career. For cause testing at any time, on suspicion or after any sort of incident. Have been tested after involvement in a "not my fault" incident, and have known colleagues be tested by the BTP after suicides.

b. We are professionals. When we sign on for duty, we are signing a legal document, saying that we are fit to be there. If we aren't, we are expected to be "man" enough to admit it. There are arrangements for leave to be taken in emergencies, access to counsellors, etc. If you need help, it is there. You are just expected to ask for it. Ditto with alcohol problems. I am aware of railway staff who have asked for help with this, and they were supported in overcoming it. Obviously, no safety critical work, until sorted out.

c. Again, as drivers, we are professionals. We are paid not to break the rules. Doing so is career suicide. When it comes to the internet, I do not mention where I work, and I do not enter into discussions about my employer. Facebook, etc, use with common sense.

 

[notadriver]

It's good to hear but it should not be left to you. I am sorry but that is a safety fact.

This is an excellent discussion and hopefully will result in stronger controls. I am sure Mintona would not object. I would be happier, were I a driver, if I were subjected to them.

If you want to be subjected to them become a bus driver. National express coach drivers have to blow into an alcohol tester to start the engine and inwards facing CCTV ensures the employer can spy on them at all times.

 

[E&W Lucas]

If you want to be subjected to them become a bus driver. National express coach drivers have to blow into an alcohol tester to start the engine and inwards facing CCTV ensures the employer can spy on them at all times.

I wouldn't be averse to blowing into something when I booked on, but the camera would be a distraction.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I think Anglia were talking about introducing CCTV into the driving cab a couple of years ago. Never made it beyond the first meeting with ASLEF as far as I am aware.

 

[E&W Lucas]

I think Anglia were talking about introducing CCTV into the driving cab a couple of years ago. Never made it beyond the first meeting with ASLEF as far as I am aware.

Think it was more recent than that. I saw an ASLEF circular, that reported that the RAIB had approached them, and they had agreed to a trail. The Union respone was along the lines that they would be In Dispute, the moment a camera was installed.

 

[ainsworth74]

What was there reasoning for opposing it?

 

[AlexS]

On the Heck incident I apologise if I gave the wrong impression. I cited it as an example of a driver (car, train, what difference does it make -he still caused deaths?) as someone who had not had sufficient sleep (well, none) but still drove. The same could be the case with a train driver. My general rail point was about the controls on train drivers. I'm a bit concerned about the driver who has told us he has never been tested since he joined in 2000.

I think this evidence alone is sufficient evidence for a full scale hit on TOC's to see who is looking after safety and who is not. It would be good if there was a whistle blower number or email that drivers (and conductors) could contact in confidence).

It's no good reacting with 'it has been OK up to now' (even if true). Such controls are in everyone's interest. I have great respect for the professionalism of our drivers, as evidenced recently in the excellent documentaries.

It's the random thing that does it - you never know when you will be tested. I was tested a year and a bit ago when I started with my company, obviously I passed.

I would have been tested a few weeks ago, except for the fact that I was on annual leave (ironically at a beer festival) - all the other safety critical staff on duty at my location at the time were tested, however. They could test us again tomorrow, or it could be a year or two. You never know so you never chance it.

I don't think there's many staff out there who would allow someone who was obviously wasted to continue working.

Like TDK mentioned, if I had someone actually book on for duty obviously drunk, I'd report them straight away because the possible consequences for everyone don't bear thinking about.