ATW drivers told to wear Company tie

[313103]

When you as a conductor walk through a train and check tickets, you are expected to smile and look positive.

Expected is from a matter of opinion. My contract of Employment says 'i must be wearing the uniform provided and wear it in a smart condition' This i do. It doesnt say you must be smiling and look positive. I mean how can one be smiling all through there shift when you are expected to stand and walk up and down of a class 378 for say 9 hours of 9 hour 40 minute shift. I would love to see you do it.

I also will wear my union tie all the more after some of the diatribe i have seen on here. You have strengthened my resolve all the more, now i know it upsets some of you.

 

[ukrob]

I also will wear my union tie all the more after some of the diatribe i have seen on here. You have strengthened my resolve all the more, now i know it upsets some of you.

I think that says more about you than anyone on here to be honest. It is quite a sad attitude to have for a grown man.

 

[jon0844]

I am sure that when you smile, even on a bad day, other people smile back and you have more fun than being miserable.

You can still be planning how to murder the passengers while grinning.

 

[BestWestern]

Well, I guess we could argue forever and a day about the rights and wrongs of all of this, with the 'insider' view that this is the thin end of an important wedge, and the 'outsider' view that it is a silly argument over juvenile trivia. But what it really shows, is that there remains a bitter relationship between companies and unions in the rail industry. After so many decades of sour disputes, we end up in a situation where neither side is prepared to trust the other, with every minor decision resulting in accusations and suspicion. In the case of ATW in particular, the company must share much of the blame for this situation, with recent issues including senior management making deliberately insulting and provocative comments about the company's staff. It's a sorry state of affairs, and one which does nobody any favours at all :roll:

 

[dk1]

Not sure about WAGN or GE but ex-Anglia drivers have an agreement where they are allowed to wear a union tie & this has never proved problematic. It did though with some of the ASLEF conductors who also followed suit. They where soon informed that the agreement stated 'drivers' & went back to those hideous 'one' striped ties. Must say the current NX red ties are ok.

 

[Nonsense]

Are you being serious? You think a pilot having a shoe lace undone affects their ability to be in control? YOU may think that but don't try and palm your failings onto others.

...and i'd like to see your evidence for your opinion that someone who breaks uniform policy is more likly to break other rules.

Yes it is rediculous to believe that an untied shoelace could interfere with the aircraft operations so points to me for not suggesting it.

What I said was that perception is important. It is an important part of a pilot's job to look immaculate as he confidently marches his flight crew to the aircraft. So important is this display that there will be a pre-walk check and they will not depart until every hair is found to be in its place. A shoe lace is a trivial oversight, but in aviation a trival oversight can down a plane, so its critical to airline's image and survival that its pilots are not seen to make mistakes.

This reminds me of an argument I had with a colleague about completing a job application in Blue ink when the form stipluated black. Rightly so, his form would be immediately directed to the bin. The ink colour seems like a trivial matter, but reviewer need not read a single word to know that the applicant cannot follow instructions.

The same applies to the wearing of a tie, or unauthorised badges on the uniform. A customer might not notice, but the failure to follow this one rule betrays an undesirable character trait. That for some reason, this individual has deemed that, at the very least, one rule does not apply to them. If this doesn't suggest to you that other rules, in a safety critical industry, might not apply to them either, then you're missing a serious trick.

How ironic, in a thread discussing perception, people see what they want to see.

I suggested that the unions were self serving and used passengers as weapons against the railway; this was interpretated as an accusation that Unions only existed to cause disruption and chaos. I am not suggesting that unions are evil or should be disbanded, but members should be aware they don't have to strike to cause disruption. Just the threat of strike action and the traveler has to reassess their plans, make other arrangements, lose sleep over missed flights and ruined holidays and more. The union is not the passenger's friend and that little badge tells the customer of your affiliation. How can you not see this is a negative thing for the industry? The union serves its paying members, as it should, but when it feels the need to defend its paying members, it is the innocent passenger that suffers. That badge tells the customer that you are part of a group that has your own interests at heart, and that sometimes your interests are counter to the passenger's interests. Its not a good message to send and is ultimately harmful to the entire industry.

 

[Flamingo]

One thing a lot of "non-railway" people do not understand is that the relationship between the union and TOC's (at least my one) is totally intertwined on a day to day level.

The route to management seems to be a post as a Local / Divisional Council rep - I can think of at least six "poachers turned gamekeepers" over the past few years in my company. They are the same individuals, they did not receive a brain transplant when they went from one side of the table to the other.

Most managers I know were union members and worked at the coal-face in their early careers.

I was very surprised when I came to the Railway to find out the number of things that were management responsibility in every other place I have ever worked, that were a union responsibility on the railway (holiday allocation and off-duty links, to mention the two main ones).

It's a strange relationship, and difficult to explain to anybody who's knowledge of it is limited to Daily Mail headlines, but the rhetoric from both union press releases, and TOC publicity machines does not give the full picture of the co-operation that exists on the ground on a day-to-day basis.

 

[Greenback]

Flamingo, it was very much the same in the Royal Mail in the 1980's - after one strike all the union leaders mysteriously got promoted to management within six months!

 

[Flamingo]

Every one of the FGW Divisional Council that pushed through the Guards Harmonisation deal last year (which sold a lot of out T&C for a pittance) has now moved on to bigger things.

Draw what inferences you want from it, but I'm sure that it's coincidence.

 

[jon0844]

I actually agree that perception is very important. Nobody actually said in this thread that someone not dressing smart is more likely to be a danger and be unsafe, but I can fully accept the above examples as why people might think someone all scruffy could be unprofessional.

While I don't think a train driver should have to dress smart, but merely tidy and presentable, I do wonder why they might not want to dress more like pilots and convey their professional skills. After all, they ARE highly trained and don't like being looked upon as glorified bus drivers (or what was it someone said, a milkfloat driver?!).

Next time I see an RPI going straight for the kid in the tracksuit and a baseball cap, I'll be sure to remind them that they shouldn't simply make presumptions based on looks. But everyone does it in some way or another.

 

[Flamingo]

We have been told that if the Temp is over 26oC, then a relaxation of uniform standard (tie/neck scarf) may be removed, and jackets don't have to be worn.

 

[313103]

I think that says more about you than anyone on here to be honest. It is quite a sad attitude to have for a grown man.

1. How so?

2. So what type of attitude should i have for someone who looks down on people like me?

 

[ukrob]

Expected is from a matter of opinion. My contract of Employment says 'i must be wearing the uniform provided and wear it in a smart condition' This i do. It doesnt say you must be smiling and look positive. I mean how can one be smiling all through there shift when you are expected to stand and walk up and down of a class 378 for say 9 hours of 9 hour 40 minute shift. I would love to see you do it.

I also will wear my union tie all the more after some of the diatribe i have seen on here. You have strengthened my resolve all the more, now i know it upsets some of you.

I think that says more about you than anyone on here to be honest. It is quite a sad attitude to have for a grown man.

1. How so?

2. So what type of attitude should i have for someone who looks down on people like me?

Stop making rubbish up. Nobody it looking down on you.

Do you really need me to explain why doing something more often because you know it 'upsets' (your word, nobody elses) the people who pay our wages makes you look childish? Seriously - take a look at what you have said. That attitude is an embarrassment to many staff on here and only reinforces negative stereotypes.

 

[90019]

1. How so?

I also will wear my union tie all the more after some of the diatribe i have seen on here. You have strengthened my resolve all the more, now i know it upsets some of you.

That's the sort of thing small children do when someone disagrees with them.

 

[Nonsense]

1. How so?

2. So what type of attitude should i have for someone who looks down on people like me?

1. Rise above it and don't take an opinion or observation posted in a forum as a personal attack.

2. Present a reasoned counter argument that doesn't reinforce the opinion that offended you.

 

[bnm]

One thing a lot of "non-railway" people do not understand is that the relationship between the union and TOC's (at least my one) is totally intertwined on a day to day level.

The route to management seems to be a post as a Local / Divisional Council rep - I can think of at least six "poachers turned gamekeepers" over the past few years in my company. They are the same individuals, they did not receive a brain transplant when they went from one side of the table to the other.

Most managers I know were union members and worked at the coal-face in their early careers.

I was very surprised when I came to the Railway to find out the number of things that were management responsibility in every other place I have ever worked, that were a union responsibility on the railway (holiday allocation and off-duty links, to mention the two main ones).

It's a strange relationship, and difficult to explain to anybody who's knowledge of it is limited to Daily Mail headlines, but the rhetoric from both union press releases, and TOC publicity machines does not give the full picture of the co-operation that exists on the ground on a day-to-day basis.

A refreshing, grown up response there flamingo. I don't pretend to know all the workings of union vs management that go on behind the scenes. I can only make my judgements based on what is in the public domain. With this particular issue, neither the union or ATW management have come up smelling of roses. No doubt there is lots of stuff going on 'behind the scenes' that Joe Public is not party to.

When it comes to petty debates about wearing a particular tie then perhaps it is best if neither side brings the argument into the public domain. Who did so in this particular case I know not. But by doing so it gives ammunition to both sides of the argument, and neither side is shown in a particularly good light.

Pay and conditions... then by all means shout from the rooftops your POV. And that goes for both sides.

I'll refer to an earlier quote of mine.... 'bigger picture brothers'.

Oh, and FGW must be doing something right. They've had to go through a difficult harmonisation process, amalgamating Great Western, Great Western Link (Thames Trains) and Wessex Trains. Amazingly they've done so with not one day of industrial action.

 

[Flamingo]

Oh, and FGW must be doing something right. They've had to go through a difficult harmonisation process, amalgamating Great Western, Great Western Link (Thames Trains) and Wessex Trains. Amazingly they've done so with not one day of industrial action.

Every one of the FGW Divisional Council that pushed through the Guards Harmonisation deal last year (which sold a lot of out T&C for a pittance) has now moved on to bigger things.

Draw what inferences you want from it, but I'm sure that it's coincidence.

As I said, pure coincidence... :roll:

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Oh, and FGW must be doing something right. They've had to go through a difficult harmonisation process, amalgamating Great Western, Great Western Link (Thames Trains) and Wessex Trains. Amazingly they've done so with not one day of industrial action.

Changing topic slightly, at TPE the ex Arriva and ex FNW Guards pay and conditions were very different but were harmonised without much fuss, and surprisingly without much being sold away either. At Northern however, where they have tried to do exactly the same thing they have gone about it a different way and nothing has resulted. And from some sources many folk are hacked off. Shows what happens when management and unions handle exactly the same situation differently.

 

[O L Leigh]

The same applies to the wearing of a tie, or unauthorised badges on the uniform. A customer might not notice, but the failure to follow this one rule betrays an undesirable character trait. That for some reason, this individual has deemed that, at the very least, one rule does not apply to them. If this doesn't suggest to you that other rules, in a safety critical industry, might not apply to them either, then you're missing a serious trick.

I don't normally lose my rag online, but right now there is only one suitable response to this statement.

Bollocks...!! We've been over and over this so many times and still you repeat the same old hogwash. I also notice that you've gone back on your earlier concilliatory (but no less incorrect) position that you weren't inferring that such choices suggested that the staff member in question was more likely to take risks.

You may believe what you wish and hold whatever opinions you like, but they are not facts simply because you believe them to be so.

How ironic, in a thread discussing perception, people see what they want to see.

Yes. That's why it's called perception.

O L Leigh

 

[Nonsense]

Bollocks...!! We've been over and over this so many times and still you repeat the same old hogwash. I also notice that you've gone back on your earlier concilliatory (but no less incorrect) position that you weren't inferring that such choices suggested that the staff member in question was more likely to take risks.


O L Leigh

On reviewing my previous posts I cannot see where I have reversed my position but I welcome a correction.

Please clarify which part you consider to be bollocks. I maintain that if a person can justify ignoring one rule, they can justify ignoring others. What is so controversial about that? Why should I have confidence in someone that has public disregard for the rules?

If I submitted a report to you with an error in the title, why would you have any faith in the content? Its the same thing.

 

[O L Leigh]

I maintain that if a person can justify ignoring one rule, they can justify ignoring others.

That bit. As to why I object to that, perhaps you should review my posts too.

What is so controversial about that? Why should I have confidence in someone that has public disregard for the rules?

It's controversial because you're making a tenuous link and suggesting that someone who chooses to wear union regalia poses a safety risk.

Frankly I'd be more concerned about what goes on inside the cab than about what choices a person makes with regard to their attire. I don't particularly care how well turned-out a person is provided that they can discharge their duties correctly and safely. I mean, we're only talking about a tie or a badge, for goodness sake...!!

O L Leigh

 

[jon0844]

Slightly off topic, but in the last fortnight at Finsbury Park, I've seen both a driver close the doors before being given the CD signal - and then the next time, a driver closed the doors on the CD and began to proceed before the RA was given (before stopping a few seconds later and waiting).

I won't mention times or dates, but it makes me wonder if they were wearing union ties or not.

 

[1V53]

It really is utter garbage to suggest that (for reasons yet not fully clarified) a person wearing the union tie may be flouting other rules or more likely to do so. Why? Because we don't know why they are in this situation.

I am hazarding a very educated guess that it is actually a well thought out position the drivers doing this are taking, which may indicate far greater awareness than those blindly following the company line.

The company will, from time to time, use the expression 'custom and practise' to back up their enforcement of an action, as will the union. Think about it. One minute in negotiations the management cite that something is perfectly acceptable now because drivers have been doing it for years, so they are putting it in the contract. The next they are dictating that union ties can't be worn, despite it being accepted custom and practise for years....

Now I have stated my opinion on the actual wearing of ties earlier, so I personally am not endorsing this stance. However, it could be argued that there is a big picture here, down to custom and practice, and it working both ways. Or not, in this case!

I'd also say whilst rules are rules, you need understanding of rules. To blindly follow without understanding the reasons for them can be as dangerous as flouting them, because rules can't cater for every single last eventuality.

I'd argue that those who have challenged this 'rule', after being permitted to wear them for years, could have given it a lot of thought and actually be far safer than a non-thinking drone of a driver who blindly implements the rules and is completely lost when it comes to an unusual situation where some thought is required.

I can also cite colleagues who have been scruffy simply because they live for their dogs or horses outside work and have not realised how dog hairs or hay all over their crumpled clothes actually looks. However, they are sharp, tuned in, utterly loyal and honest towards their employer and totally safe, having been incident free for years.

So yes, the assumed idea that someone less presentable may be less safe is purely a misconceived and illogical notion.

 

[merlodlliw]

I can also cite colleagues who have been scruffy simply because they live for their dogs or horses outside work and have not realised how dog hairs or hay all over their crumpled clothes actually looks. However, they are sharp, tuned in, utterly loyal and honest towards their employer and totally safe, having been incident free for years.

So yes, the assumed idea that someone less presentable may be less safe is purely a misconceived and illogical notion.[/QUOTE] IV 53

Well put,I am both a dog owner(short haired Jack Russell), the hairs get everywhere including clothes,SWMBO has horses, again they also moult
greys are the worst, & yes hay gets everywhere, I drive to work, if the dog as been in the car, grey hair on the suit.
I have colleagues who have no other interest than, the pub or TV, I know who I would choose to have a clear mind at 0400 in the AM

Bob

 

[Nonsense]

That bit. As to why I object to that, perhaps you should review my posts too.



It's controversial because you're making a tenuous link and suggesting that someone who chooses to wear union regalia poses a safety risk.

No I am not. I am saying that the decision to wear union regalia is not theirs to take. Its a simple enough instruction: "Do not wear union regalia on your uniform"

There are procedures to communicate your discomfort with a new rule, defiantly breaking the rule isn't one of them.

Frankly I'd be more concerned about what goes on inside the cab than about what choices a person makes with regard to their attire. I don't particularly care how well turned-out a person is provided that they can discharge their duties correctly and safely. I mean, we're only talking about a tie or a badge, for goodness sake...!!

O L Leigh

You're referring to the choice of attire. There is no choice. Its a uniform, and being well turned-out is their duty Getting to work dressed properly is the easy part, if someone can't manage that bit why would you have any faith in the harder stuff?

My apologies if I appear to be antagonistic but this is a point of principle. Forget that its a tie, or badge or whatever, and consider what the argument represents.

You are effectively saying that it is acceptable for the railway to be operated by staff who cannot follow instructions and/or are unaware of company policy and procedures, or some cases, even dress the part.

Whether you consider the matter trivial and inconsequential is irrelevant. A decision was taken by your superiors and you choose to ignore it. This rule might indeed be trivial and not safety critical, but thats OK, you decide what rules you apply to you, you know best. You have to realise how unprofessional this trivial insignificant little defiance looks to outsiders in the really real unsubsidised unregulated competitive private sector. Once you begin to look unprofessional, its not so big a stretch as you think to reach unsafe.

Every rule is there for a reason, even if its shortsighted or unworkable and will inevitably be rescinded, that doesn't mean you have the right to ignore it, and there maybe unseen consequences if you do.

Think about the visitor to your depot. Aware of the rule on union regalia questions the depot manager why so many fly the colours.
"Yes, well we told them not to but they don't listen" He replies. And the visitor goes home believing that discipline on the railways are out of control or in the grip of the unions. That visitor might be a reporter or a future tory transport minister and you'll never know how you shaped their view.

Just because you don't see the problem doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[Minilad]

So do you have any evidence to back up your theory

How many people are there on our railway network seeing a driver wearing a union badge or tie (in some cases quite legitimately) and thinking the way you suggest. Or is it just you. I am going to hazard a guess and say not many think this way.
And to be quite honest with you, from a drivers perspective, you are talking a substantial amount of rubbish

 

[Nonsense]

So do you have any evidence to back up your theory

How many people are there on our railway network seeing a driver wearing a union badge or tie (in some cases quite legitimately) and thinking the way you suggest. Or is it just you. I am going to hazard a guess and say not many think this way.
And to be quite honest with you, from a drivers perspective, you are talking a substantial amount of rubbish

If you imagine that the situation I describe arises from a customer spotting a small badge on a driver in the cab of a train, at speed, in the dark, from afar, in the fog with an owl. Then yes, it will sound like a substantial amount of rubbish.

I give up.

 

[1V53]

If you imagine that the situation I describe arises from a customer spotting a small badge on a driver in the cab of a train, at speed, in the dark, from afar, in the fog with an owl. Then yes, it will sound like a substantial amount of rubbish.

I give up.

Thank goodness for that!

 

[O L Leigh]

No I am not. I am saying that the decision to wear union regalia is not theirs to take. Its a simple enough instruction: "Do not wear union regalia on your uniform"

1 - For the umpteenth time, this is not the case with all TOCs. Some do indeed permit staff to choose whether or not to wear a union tie in lieu of a uniform tie. This is not a breach of uniform policy.

There are procedures to communicate your discomfort with a new rule, defiantly breaking the rule isn't one of them.

Thank you, I am aware of this.

You're referring to the choice of attire. There is no choice. Its a uniform, and being well turned-out is their duty

I refer you to point one.

Getting to work dressed properly is the easy part, if someone can't manage that bit why would you have any faith in the harder stuff?

2 - Again, for the umpteenth time, because standards of appearance have no relationship to efficiency, professionalism or, crucially, safety. You cannot simply equate smartness with safety.

Frankly, why should I be placing my faith in someone dressed correctly in the full uniform? What difference does it really matter? It's what's inside the shirt that really matters. With a bit of application almost anyone can be made to look like they've stepped out of the pages of a catalogue, but that does not make them good drivers or guards.

Even assuming that we could wave a magic wand and grant your wish of banishing union regalia and non-standard uniform from the railway, you will not instantly raise standards because you will not have changed the people one jot.

My apologies if I appear to be antagonistic but this is a point of principle. Forget that its a tie, or badge or whatever, and consider what the argument represents.

Well I'm sorry, but no it isn't about a point of principle. It's about a very minor point of uniform.

You are effectively saying that it is acceptable for the railway to be operated by staff who cannot follow instructions and/or are unaware of company policy and procedures, or some cases, even dress the part.

Did I...?

There is an expectation that operational staff maintain a familiarity with rules, policies and procedures, together with any changes as they are implemented, and this knowledge is assessed on a regular basis. Any deficiency in the knowledge or application of these rules, policies and procedures are dealt with as a performance management issue. I think that's right and proper.

What I did say I have explained again for your benefit at point two.

Whether you consider the matter trivial and inconsequential is irrelevant. A decision was taken by your superiors and you choose to ignore it. This rule might indeed be trivial and not safety critical, but thats OK, you decide what rules you apply to you, you know best. You have to realise how unprofessional this trivial insignificant little defiance looks to outsiders in the really real unsubsidised unregulated competitive private sector. Once you begin to look unprofessional, its not so big a stretch as you think to reach unsafe.

Hokum. I refer you once more to point two.

Every rule is there for a reason, even if its shortsighted or unworkable and will inevitably be rescinded, that doesn't mean you have the right to ignore it, and there maybe unseen consequences if you do.

Heavens!! The railway is literally GROANING with rules like that. Have you read the Rule Book...?

As for unseen consequences, I really don't understand what you might be referring to. I suppose I could be called in for a chat by a manager, but this hasn't happened. They know us all well enough to know who needs an eye kept on them, but this is on the basis of performance rather than attire.

Think about the visitor to your depot. Aware of the rule on union regalia questions the depot manager why so many fly the colours.
"Yes, well we told them not to but they don't listen" He replies. And the visitor goes home believing that discipline on the railways are out of control or in the grip of the unions. That visitor might be a reporter or a future tory transport minister and you'll never know how you shaped their view.

I refer you yet again to point one.

Just because you don't see the problem doesn't mean it isn't there.

With respect, it's more likely that the problem is one of your own imagining.

O L Leigh

 

[1V53]

Apparently there is no 'agreement' re the ties. I assume therefore that the drivers are making a point based on 'custom and practise'

Dodgy ground, I'd suggest, as 'custom and practise' has been to wear the old bus drivers uniform for years, but that is going....