Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
When I worked for BR the Rule Book, Section A or B (I think), said that if requested a member of staff must give their name and home station to a member of the public. Is this still the case? I know that we have GDPR and many more rights to keep our identity secret, but if a member of the public feels a member of staff’s behaviour is unacceptable, how can they identify the member of staff? And how far down the line does it go? Is it not just TOCs, but also Network Rail, Freight Operators or even subcontractors.
My thought: if somebody is not readily identifiable as a member of staff, then they are just a random person; and if not individually identifiable (by name or whatever - that's why Policemen have shoulder numbers), they are just 'the man at the station' (referred to to in many threads, usually as having 'said').
So any member of staff - doing anything that only staff can do - should be readily identifiable as such; and any expected to interact with passengers/the public (noting the frequent use of 'speak to any member of staff') should when required give their identity (and ideally wear a badge displaying it) - by name/whatever, role/position and employer (which maybe the company which employs them, or which contract with the company that does).
Presumably a member of staff has to identify themselves so a complaint can be made and the information rendered would allow a complaint to be made
I've regularly given customers my employee number together with relevant contact details so a complaint would be made. The only circumstances where I would refuse is if I'm off the employers clock.
I would not give my name to any member of the public or staff outside working hours except when legally required to. (EG to investigate a ticketing irregularity)
Most TOCs will have policies along the lines of needing to wear a name badge for customer facing roles (this may or may not include drivers, depending on your chosen point of view! ), and also a need to wear I.D. when in any non-public area, which is a Transec (Government body) requirement on which the railway is audited (allegedly).
In these days of social media etc, it is not appropriate for any member of staff to be expected to offer their surname, nor is there ever a need for anybody to be furnished with this, and as such most frontline staff will have a namebadge showing just a first name. Managers, in my experience, tend to have their full name on their badge, for whatever reason. The Transec I.D. can be a thorny issue if a TOC requires it to be worn all the time, which has happened in the past, as it means by default that a colleague's full name is on show.
This reminds me of a thread some time ago when a rail enthusiast, not an employee, wore an old uniform, or a jacket which could be mistaken for an old uniform. I would therefore expect staff to wear some form of ID to prove that they are bono fide staff on duty.
In any public facing job I've had I've usually had a name badge or ID or when asked, I've given my first name on demand but I won't give any more than that. Staff number is an internal piece of information which I really wouldn't give out in this day and age seeing as how my staff number has often been a log in for internal IT systems and you don't know who can do what with basic information and what lengths they might go to to get such information. I also refuse anyone to take a photo of my ID card, which I've been asked for before. Again. big security issues with that.
My second name is too personal and not needed for a member of the public to make a complaint If they mention the time/location of the matter they wish to complain about. My employer can use that basic information to find out who was on duty at the time and get back to me if they need to. I've had very few incidents of this in my career mind you.
An authorised person who is exercising any power conferred on him by any of these Byelaws shall produce a form of identification when requested to do so and such identification shall state the name of his employer and shall contain a means of identifying the authorised person.
Whilst obviously not every instruction will be issued under the Byelaws, as a matter of practicality I would expect all staff who might ask passengers to do (or not to do) something, to carry identification.
I’ve had colleagues report to me some disgustingly inappropriate comments made to them on social media when a customer stalked them online. I’ve also seen customers threaten staff using their full name before to the stage we’ve taken name badges off to give us some level of protection - if a customer wants to provide compliments a description of my job and where I am is more than enough to bottom out who to pass them on to (as evidenced by the printed email I have to that effect)
Whilst obviously not every instruction will be issued under the Byelaws, as a matter of practicality I would expect all staff who might ask passengers to do (or not to do) something, to carry identification.
Unless they're the only person with that name in the company, a badge which solely states a first name is unlikely to satisfy the requirement of being:
Of course, most ID badges also contain an employee payroll/identification number, and in fact that on its own would be sufficient as a substitute for a name.
That's the method that most police forces go down - officers have collar numbers which uniquely identify them but are not publicly associated to their name.
A badge would also need to contain the name of the TOC (as opposed to just the symbol/logo) to satisfy the Byelaws.
However, there is no requirement to proactively wear a badge, only to show it on demand.
Unless they're the only person with that name in the company, a badge which solely states a first name is unlikely to satisfy the requirement of being:
Of course, most ID badges also contain an employee payroll/identification number, and in fact that on its own would be sufficient as a substitute for a name.
That's the method that most police forces go down - officers have collar numbers which uniquely identify them but are not publicly associated to their name.
A badge would also need to contain the name of the TOC (as opposed to just the symbol/logo) to satisfy the Byelaws.
However, there is no requirement to proactively wear a badge, only to show it on demand.
What you've said makes sense, but isn't said in the document!
That was more my point, it's ambiguous and in these grey areas the TOCs always seem to be regarded as correct.
Ticket inspectors tend to get a number rather than a name badge.
For the record I worked for a TOC for many years, and applied many bylaws - all I had was a name badge - they never issued any form of ID to non safety critical staff, and whilst I've always been safety critical the union and company advice was never to give away your full name. First name and location was always regarded enough to identify.
Even now, a few TOCs later the only ID I have is my train driving licence. No security pass or name badge or anything.
This reminds me of a thread some time ago when a rail enthusiast, not an employee, wore an old uniform, or a jacket which could be mistaken for an old uniform. I would therefore expect staff to wear some form of ID to prove that they are bono fide staff on duty.
There is a thread somewhere on this forums with someone complaining they were asked to remove a Virgin Trains East Coast jacket whilst waiting for an LNER train.
First name, service origin station and time, along with the headcode are all I give out for complaints and compliments and both have successfully found me. My name is relatively common.
Police do have numbers, but must identify themselves by rank and name too. Failing to do so risks jeopardising an investigation as it wasn't correctly performed.
What level of info given out depends on the context its being asked in. When they 'demand' my name for a complaint after they've already kicked off , then they get my first name.
If I'm encouraging someone to complain about conditions, overcrowding etc , I normally give them either my full name or first name and employee number. Just think it makes it that bit easier for them to get something out of customer service, by being able to prove that an employee directed them to make the complaint.
I always find the 'whats your name ' merchants a bit strange. It always tends to be the people who have kicked off and got personally abusive out of nowhere. They seem to see asking for your name as some kind of intimidatory tactic. Had a bloke recently who tried to demand I write down my name, my managers name and the complaints address. Was half expecting him to ask me to write the complaint about myself and post it for him aswell!!
I just give my first name, ID number and tell people to quote the service time, anything else - nope. That's what we are told to use for endorsements.
We have 2 formats of ID number, the numbers are identifiable but there's a selection of letters used on the front for any logins so the numbers that you quote can't really be misused.
This reminds me of a thread some time ago when a rail enthusiast, not an employee, wore an old uniform, or a jacket which could be mistaken for an old uniform. I would therefore expect staff to wear some form of ID to prove that they are bono fide staff on duty.
I think this is still an issue from time to time which is why I agree that there should be an element of identification from staff which by and large is already in place . It is after all a service industry.
Unless they're the only person with that name in the company, a badge which solely states a first name is unlikely to satisfy the requirement of being:
The TOC when the complaint reaches them will know which Dave or Helen etc was working a specific train at a given time, so a first name would satisfy the needs unless there are more than one Dave or Helen working that service
This is an interesting question. When the public are getting a penalty fare they are expected to identify themselves. Are railway staff legally required to? I would expect so yes although not to the same extent. Considering pilots and stewards on plans go out of their way to make their names known, it is strange how on the railway it is largely the opposite. As some posters have said they would rather give their employee number than anything more personal - not enough in some cases.
People generally do not go out of their way to complain for no reason. They do it because they are upset due to being wrongly treated and would like a solution to be found to a problem. Anyone who refuses to give their name admits their guilt in my opinion. Else what would they have to hide from an investigation? All staff are representing their company whilst on duty and should provide their name and depot without question on demand.
The TOC when the complaint reaches them will know which Dave or Helen etc was working a specific train at a given time, so a first name would satisfy the needs unless there are more than one Dave or Helen working that service
Yes for train staff it should always be possible for the operator to work out who was working the service.
This does, however, assume the crew managers have recorded everything correctly, which can very occasionally throw up issues if someone has done a mutual changeover (especially if done at the last minute) or if a spare has been used for whatever reason. It *should* all be recorded, but should doesn’t always mean does.
This is an interesting question. When the public are getting a penalty fare they are expected to identify themselves. Are railway staff legally required to? I would expect so yes although not to the same extent. Considering pilots and stewards on plans go out of their way to make their names known, it is strange how on the railway it is largely the opposite. As some posters have said they would rather give their employee number than anything more personal - not enough in some cases.
People generally do not go out of their way to complain for no reason. They do it because they are upset due to being wrongly treated and would like a solution to be found to a problem. Anyone who refuses to give their name admits their guilt in my opinion. Else what would they have to hide from an investigation? All staff are representing their company whilst on duty and should provide their name and depot without question on demand.
A lot of complaints centre upon what might diplomatically be called “unrealistic expectations”, which in some cases can be as unrealistic as expecting a service to wait for them to board when they’ve turned up late, or that it’s a staff member’s personal fault that something has gone wrong and their journey is being delayed.
Some staff not unreasonably take the view that any customer service (as opposed to safety) responsibility towards a passenger ends at a point where that passenger has been abusive. That doesn’t mean being rude back, but it can mean not helping the passenger with their problem and walking away.
I have nothing to hide from an investigation - but any number of things to hide from a crank who only needs to know enough to identify me to my employer.
I have nothing to hide from an investigation - but any number of things to hide from a crank who only needs to know enough to identify me to my employer.
If a member of the public wishes to make a complaint against me at work, whilst I am acting as an agent of my employer (whatever my industry, with very few exceptions), they require only enough information to allow my employer to identify me in order to process the complaint internally. The complainant has no need, and absolutely no right whatsoever, to be able to identify me on a personal level; quite simply, it doesn't work like that. Just as a complainant has no right to be informed of the internal company outcome of that complaint.
Some folk seem to struggle to understand that, and appear to believe that they have some sort of right to be personally involved; they really don't.
Those of us who work in the industry and both have their employment on Facebook and participate in discussions are likely familiar with some of the random friend requests from random enthusiasts.
I removed the fact I am a driver from my profile after a couple of other drivers told me that the guys taking photos at a specific station were waiting for me because they want to ask for some "tonez".
Whilst pretty harmless, can you imagine if some of the people who are thrown out of stations for bylaw offences, or got an MG11 or penalty fare, were able to search for us on social media?
I do not intend to use a fake name just so passengers can't find me. First name and location/time is enough for any TOC to find a member of staff. It was always enough to find me when someone made a complaint or there was a mystery shopper.
Unfortunately, whilst I can understand some of the people in this thread who are making the point about last names - and I agree it is more professional - we live in a society where we always have to play by the lowest common denominator. And in this case, those are the ones who will stalk us on Facebook to try and find where we live, when we are working, our family members etc.
There has never to my knowledge been an incident that was thrown out of court because a member of staff didn't give their last name. If there is a need to identify staff more precisely then it would have to be down the line of the shoulder numbers that the police and some security services use.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
My go to line when I was a conductor and anyone was trying to get an unreasonable amount of my details is "you have my first name and the train I'm on. [TOC] will easily be able to find me"
A lot of complaints centre upon what might diplomatically be called “unrealistic expectations”, which in some cases can be as unrealistic as expecting a service to wait for them to board when they’ve turned up late, or that it’s a staff member’s personal fault that something has gone wrong and their journey is being delayed.
I think this is why a lot of us don't want to give too much information away, especially when whatever is being complained is beyond our control. I once had a passenger who wanted my full details, my managers full details as well as the full details of the controller responsible for his train being one coach short-formed and a direct phone number for control.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
), and also a need to wear I.D. when in any non-public area, which is a Transec (Government body) requirement on which the railway is audited (allegedly).
