Driver testing

[Cherry_Picker]

What was there reasoning for opposing it?

I can't speak for the union, but it is the same reason I oppose stuff like PRISM and other continuous monitoring of my activity.

Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Watch someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest - or just blackmail with. Privacy is important because without it, surveillance information will be abused: to peep, to sell to marketers and to spy on political enemies - whoever they happen to be at the time.

(full article)

Existing monitoring systems are already in place for drivers. A driver manager can download a train's black box unannounced. He can ride with a driver unannounced. He can set up a speed trap unannounced (although this doesn't seem to happen much at all these days because of the presence of black box recorders on trains) so I guess the major concern is that in cab CCTV can be used as a tool for companies to weed out drivers they don't like for whatever reason. I think that is against the interests of drivers as a collective and it is certainly against the interests of ASLEF as far as I can tell. What happens if a TOC decides to go through hundreds of hours of CCTV footage to find something to sack an employee who is in dispute with them or blackmail a union official who is unwilling to accept a pay offer? Agreeing to such a trial when there is no obvious safety case for it would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.

 

[DD]

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.

No, it was actually the rssb or raib who said no.

 

[rebmcr]

Introducing continuous low-level performance anxiety is exactly the opposite of what to do to a train driver.

 

[broadgage]

If inward facing cab cameras were installed, I suspect that they would be used for trivial, not safety related disciplinary action, For example to catch the driver not wearing a tie.

I have heard a complaint from freight train drivers that their employers have used forward facing cameras to catch out drivers going the other way, for example not wearing a tie.

As regards drug and alcohol testing I would suggest that the present regime is about right.
No random testing might encourage a minority to chance it, and overly frequent testing would be very expensive and disruptive.

 

[455driver]

If inward facing cab cameras were installed, I suspect that they would be used for trivial, not safety related disciplinary action, For example to catch the driver not wearing a tie.

As has happened with our signalling colleagues with the voice recorders being routinely examined to make sure the signaller is making the driver repeat the message back parrot fashion rather than making sure the message is correctly understood between the two of them.

 

[Tomnick]

As has happened with our signalling colleagues with the voice recorders being routinely examined to make sure the signaller is making the driver repeat the message back parrot fashion rather than making sure the message is correctly understood between the two of them.

Although they do routinely listen to comms (rather than just post-incident), it all seems sensible as far as repeating back is concerned (far better to make sure you both understand what's going on than to push for the exact words to be repeated and lose that understanding whilst doing so!). Woe betide anyone who doesn't ascertain where the other party's speaking from though - even if they're ten yards away and clearly visible - the voice recorder doesn't know that!

 

[Mintona]

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.

I know it's not up to me. I'm just saying it how it is. Having more random testing would be very expensive and wouldn't 'catch' anymore people than it currently does, because drivers don't turn up to work user the influence. I wouldn't have a problem with blowing in a tube everyday if that's what they wanted, but as it costs £100 per screening it simply wouldn't be cost-effective.

 

[TDK]

As has happened with our signalling colleagues with the voice recorders being routinely examined to make sure the signaller is making the driver repeat the message back parrot fashion rather than making sure the message is correctly understood between the two of them.

I have been on these Voice Recording Monitoring Meetings with NR and they listen to both parties and grade them A, B or C the signallers are monitored just as much as the drivers.

I do understand your point though as there has been occasions when the message has been read back by a driver incorrectly and the signaller has accepted it, not on major safety issues though.

 

[Tomnick]

I'd much rather have a driver read back the message with different words (demonstrating full understanding in the process) than one reading back parrot-fashion (and probably not fully understanding it). Incidentally, are drivers' comms routinely reviewed off the back of our monitoring? I didn't think so, as each of us has to have our comms pulled and reviewed a certain number of times each year - it'd surely be logistically difficult to arrange the same for drivers?

 

[Dieseldriver]

The only time it's cropped up for me is if I have a conversation with the signaller while being assessed. Is also done on the simulator too.

 

[TDK]

I'd much rather have a driver read back the message with different words (demonstrating full understanding in the process) than one reading back parrot-fashion (and probably not fully understanding it). Incidentally, are drivers' comms routinely reviewed off the back of our monitoring? I didn't think so, as each of us has to have our comms pulled and reviewed a certain number of times each year - it'd surely be logistically difficult to arrange the same for drivers?

The usual plan is that a DM has to do voice recorder monitoring on a bi-monthly basis as it is a pert of their competence. It is simple to do, a NR MOM or similar will plug a laptop into a phone socket anywhere in the country, use the correct software and can get any box in the countries voice recordings to monitor. So, the DM can pick a day there was disruption and then ensure the driver is using the correct protocol.

Drivers are not individually monitored as this is almost impossible. There are also meeting every 3 months or so when the DM's of the local TOC's say to Manchester, Birmingham etc. are invited to a Comms meeting/forum and certain messages are played out and they are graded by the meeting attendees for both Signaller & driver.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The only time it's cropped up for me is if I have a conversation with the signaller while being assessed. Is also done on the simulator too.

You will be surprised - see above post

 

[9K43]

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.

I have been tested 3am before setting sail from HM to go to Ellesmere Port, with the long lost Gas Tanks.
This was un announced testing.
I had a secret ploy about testing for drugs and alchol.
I did not drink before or after I signed on and never would.
To come to work under the influence was and is sheer madness.
My view is these jobs paid well and I would not do anything to get me the sack.
I worked to the rule book chapter and verse, no cutting corners that would get me in bother.
Safety must be the first priority everbody that works on the railway.

 

[DarloRich]

The drugs and alcohol rules apply to all of us who work on the railway regardless of role, rank or station. We all sign up to the zero tolerance code, agree to random testing and the acknowledge we will be personally responsible for meeting the required standards of behavior at all times. It is quite clear.