Railstaff and alcohol

[DeeGee]

I have a question that I've been wondering about for a while and was wondering if someone could enlighten me.

Many moons ago I applied for a job on the railways which required a safety-critical role and as such I was told that if I progressed beyond the interview stage I'd be subjected to a medical drug tested (and breathalysed?) Which got me thinking.

Commercial Pilots have very strict rules about when they can have their last drink during a layover. I presume they stick to these rules and that there's an honesty element in play (although I'm only guessing)

I'm assuming that it's the same for train drivers, given that their job is probably more dangerous.

Do you have rules that you have to stick to? Are you breathalysed randomly? Is there random drug screening?

I don't know how it works, but I presume that you can be phoned in the morning and offered overtime. Does the chance of this prevent you from kicking back with a couple of cans at home, or going out of an evening?

Are the rules the same for guards? Dispatchers? Retail staff?

I'm just interested. I'm not a big drinker myself, but I've worked in offices where the culture was to finish the week/a shift and paint the town red, and I'm wondering if similar opportunities are available to railstaff.

 

[scott118]

there are three times you will be called upon for DnA tests. Everyone's body is different, so should you wanna kick back with a few beers, and risk the loss of premium overtime rates, then that decision is for sure, yours. What is important though, is that you have to declare yourself fit for duty. Should you then be involved in an incident, then found to have failed the test, it would have been the most expensive pint ever...

 

[BestWestern]

Yes - all 'safety critical' railway staff are subject to very strict drugs and alcohol policies. Safety critical includes Driver, Guards, Dispatchers, Shunters and various management and supervisor grades with responsibility for making operational decisions, likewise control centre staff. Additionally, at many TOCs, this rule applies universally to all staff, safety critical or not.

The alcohol rule involves a limit far lower than that for drink driving - essentially it's zero, but of course the body will always show a natural trace of its own accord, so an actual zero limit isn't possible. As for drugs, staff are obliged to inform their doctor/pharmacist etc of the nature of their work before accepting any prescription medications, and to exercise due dilligence when using any non-prescription products to ensure they are not prohibited. Anything which may cause drowsiness or impaired judgement is generally disallowed, if such drugs are needed the staff member will be placed on other duties until they have completed the medication. Illegal substances are, of course, prohibited also.

Staff are routinely subject to random screening, and will also be screened after a safety incident or where there is a suspicion that they may be under the influence. Failure of said screening will result in instant dismissal, and potentially prosecution.

 

[muz379]

Only thing to add to what BestWestern has said is that unlike pilots there are not rules on when you can have your last drink as a safety critical member of railway staff . You merely declare yourself fit for duty and take responsibility for being clear of alcohol . Everybody metabolizes alcohol at a slightly different rate

Me personally I wont touch a drop unless I have the following day off work so like tonight I might have a beer or two with my dinner and just relaxing at home because im not in work again until Monday .

As BestWestern stated its instant dismissal for me that's not worth the risk for a can of beer no matter how nice it is .

 

[leaffall]

The railway limit for alcohol in my TOC is 13ug/100ml breath, which is roughly 1/3 of the drink drive limit. I'm not sure if that is the same at all TOC's - but it is around that for airline pilots. It equates to around a pint of normal strength lager, however I don't know of anyone that would have a pint and go into work, 13 might sound a lot but it is virtually zero as 1 drink could put you over.

In the olden days things were very different, just as they were on the buses. Railway and bus social clubs were frequented regularly and the drinking scene was commonplace. I can remember bus drivers going upstairs to the social club in their breaks for a ploughmans and a couple of pints before going back to finish the second half of their duties. Nowadays things are very different, I don't think anyone would knowingly sign fit for work whilst still unfit through alcohol, however it is the morning after that catches people out. Like Muz said I won't have a drink if I'm I the next day, unless it's a very late start and I always count My units and leave a massive margin for error so I know, without doubt I am zero.

It's also worth noting that the TOC's take a very dim view of alcohol related offences outside of the workplace too. If you were prosecuted for drink driving away from work you will not be popular and they would watch you like a hawk

 

[DeeGee]

Is it the same for drivers and guards? How about, for instance, buffet staff? Obviously, they don't have any part to play with the safe departure of the train, but I assume they would have a safety role to play in an emergency?

 

[Bodiddly]

To get an idea of what it was like in the days before the strict policies came in to force, speak to a railway worker who is nearing retirement age. Some of the stories I have heard from old colleagues about drink at work are hilarious but quite shocking and scary.

 

[TomBoyd]

AFAIK, signalers aren't allowed to drink in the 12 hours preceding a shift.

I have a personal rule that I don't drink for the full day before working. But I don't drink much anyway...

 

[Clip]

Is it the same for drivers and guards? How about, for instance, buffet staff? Obviously, they don't have any part to play with the safe departure of the train, but I assume they would have a safety role to play in an emergency?

Even for buffet staff as well as office staff too(at my place)

I think its better all round to have a blanket restriction on drinking across all staff but not everyone agrees with me

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think its better all round to have a blanket restriction on drinking across all staff but not everyone agrees with me

I don't (though I'm not rail staff) - rules should only in my view exist where they actually bring a concrete benefit, not just because "it's fair to have everyone the same", which is the only solid argument I can see behind having the same rule for an office worker as a driver.

Neil

 

[leaffall]

I don't (though I'm not rail staff) - rules should only in my view exist where they actually bring a concrete benefit, not just because "it's fair to have everyone the same", which is the only solid argument I can see behind having the same rule for an office worker as a driver.

Neil

It's not just about fairness Neil, you're right of course that safety critical staff need to be unimpaired more than say, office staff, but in the modern world of "best practice" companies have a duty of care to their employees, allowing a member of staff to be in the workplace - even an office - knowing that they are impaired through alcohol is not showing that duty of care as they are a danger to themselves are their colleagues. Even in an office they could stumble and crack their head on a photocopier and somebody would cry foul "why did you allow that person to be drunk in the workplace"

 

[Maybe]

The rules are the same for everyone be it a driver/cleaner/member of staff in the office

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's not just about fairness Neil, you're right of course that safety critical staff need to be unimpaired more than say, office staff, but in the modern world of "best practice" companies have a duty of care to their employees, allowing a member of staff to be in the workplace - even an office - knowing that they are impaired through alcohol is not showing that duty of care as they are a danger to themselves are their colleagues. Even in an office they could stumble and crack their head on a photocopier and somebody would cry foul "why did you allow that person to be drunk in the workplace"

Yes, but if the law thinks that the current drink-drive limit is fine for operating deadly machinery (a car), then it's arguably also adequate for working in an office.

Neil

 

[Bodiddly]

Yes, but if the law thinks that the current drink-drive limit is fine for operating deadly machinery (a car), then it's arguably also adequate for working in an office.

Neil

Which just shows up the current drink drive limit as madness. Some people can get tipsy and still be under the limit!
Personally, I think that no employee should be under the influence at their work. Apart from them becoming a liability, they normally become incredible bores as well!

 

[scott118]

Which just shows up the current drink drive limit as madness. Some people can get tipsy and still be under the limit!
Personally, I think that no employee should be under the influence at their work. Apart from them becoming a liability, they normally become incredible bores as well!

or, i love you man.....:roll:

 

[Jamesb1974]

I don't (though I'm not rail staff) - rules should only in my view exist where they actually bring a concrete benefit, not just because "it's fair to have everyone the same", which is the only solid argument I can see behind having the same rule for an office worker as a driver.

I think it is more to do with self policing by the rail industry than anything else. The rail industry wants to see everyone, whether in a safety critical role or not, do their job in a professional manner.

What if that office worker is the duty manager on the control desk on a night shift, where it has all gone breasts skyward? You don't want someone with a fuzzy head, stinking of ale trying to keep all the plates spinning.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What if that office worker is the duty manager on the control desk on a night shift, where it has all gone breasts skyward? You don't want someone with a fuzzy head, stinking of ale trying to keep all the plates spinning.

Someone "with a fuzzy head, stinking of ale" is likely to be well over even the current drink-drive limit.

Personally, for office workers, I would have a rule of "you must not be unable to perform your duties correctly due to alcohol" and leave it at that. That sort of line is found in most contracts of employment these days. I think the idea of breathalysing office staff is an unnecessary invasion, and any disciplinary action should, for such staff, simply be based around whether they are doing their job or not.

Neil

 

[leaffall]

Someone "with a fuzzy head, stinking of ale" is likely to be well over even the current drink-drive limit.

Personally, for office workers, I would have a rule of "you must not be unable to perform your duties correctly due to alcohol" and leave it at that. That sort of line is found in most contracts of employment these days. I think the idea of breathalysing office staff is an unnecessary invasion, and any disciplinary action should, for such staff, simply be based around whether they are doing their job or not.

Neil

I don't disagree with the spirit (no pun intended) of what you're saying, but who decides whether "you are unable to perform your duties"? The boss who doesn't like you? The supervisor who sees you as a threat? For any alcohol rules there must, by definition include a limit. Otherwise they are open to interpretation by different people who see thing differently. A couple of pints on Friday lunchtime may be viewed as fine by one person, and completely unacceptable by another.

For these things to stick at a tribunal, imo there must be a set limit

 

[muz379]

The only office staff I really come into contact with are driver and guard managers who obviously have to submit to the policy because they carry out assessment duties as well as being on call and required to respond to an incident .

And operational control staff . Who for the basis of making sound judgements and making sound safety decisions should also be completely free from D & A .

Someone "with a fuzzy head, stinking of ale" is likely to be well over even the current drink-drive limit.

Personally, for office workers, I would have a rule of "you must not be unable to perform your duties correctly due to alcohol" and leave it at that. That sort of line is found in most contracts of employment these days. I think the idea of breathalysing office staff is an unnecessary invasion, and any disciplinary action should, for such staff, simply be based around whether they are doing their job or not.

Neil

personally I dont think it really matters . People clearly submit to contracts of employment that say that there is a zero tolerance policy to D & A and if they wish to submit to those agreements which many people plainly do then it doesn't matter what you or I think of it being an unnecessary invasion .

 

[Jamesb1974]

Someone "with a fuzzy head, stinking of ale" is likely to be well over even the current drink-drive limit.

Personally, for office workers, I would have a rule of "you must not be unable to perform your duties correctly due to alcohol" and leave it at that. That sort of line is found in most contracts of employment these days. I think the idea of breathalysing office staff is an unnecessary invasion, and any disciplinary action should, for such staff, simply be based around whether they are doing their job or not.

Well obviously, the phrase "fuzzy head, stinking of ale" was a generalisation and not be taken quite so literally.

Personally, for office workers, I would have a rule of "you must not be unable to perform your duties correctly due to alcohol" and leave it at that.

That is a very narrow precipice your standing on there Neil, which implies that as long as your work doesn't suffer you can turn up p*ssed as ars*holes and still get the job done. Some long term alcoholics can function and appear perfectly sober, while having alcohol levels that would put most of us on our back. Now I'm not suggesting for one second that we have some kind of Nazi state where your boss sniffs your breath and interrogates you as to what amounts of alcohol you've consumed since he last saw you, but there has to be some kind of middle ground! If they suspect you can't do your job due to alcohol, would you rather that overzealous boss who hates you, breathalyzed you and found you to be under the company limit or flirt you off 'toute suite' and 'leave it at that'? I'd take the bag any day of the week if It meant me proving that the two pints I'd had the night before didn't impair my office based role.

 

[scott118]

I don't disagree with the spirit (no pun intended) of what you're saying, but who decides whether "you are unable to perform your duties"? The boss who doesn't like you? The supervisor who sees you as a threat? For any alcohol rules there must, by definition include a limit. Otherwise they are open to interpretation by different people who see thing differently. A couple of pints on Friday lunchtime may be viewed as fine by one person, and completely unacceptable by another.

For these things to stick at a tribunal, imo there must be a set limit

Anybody, imo, who feels the need to turn up for work inebriated, clearly shows a lack of respect for themselves, let alone their colleagues. Maybe, it's the establishment and their 'petty' rules, that some find the most offensive. I, like many others, value, what my job allows me and how it benefits my family. Guidelines are set to protect everyone, regardless of whether your role is safety critical or not.

 

[The Snap]

As others have said, we are subject to random screening, for cause testing (if someone suspects you), or after an incident.

The rules are the rules on D&A, whether you agree with them or not.

If you turn up to work having had a drink, expect someone to smell it on you and for you to be cause tested. You are then immediately suspended for 3-5 days while the test results are processed, regardless of who you are or whether you had a drink or not. When the results come back, if you fail, you're sacked, end of story. No ifs, buts, or maybes.

I speak from experience; a colleague had this happen to him towards the end of the last year. COSS and PTS tickets gone, job gone, on the Sentinel blacklist for 5 years.

Not worth it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't disagree with the spirit (no pun intended) of what you're saying, but who decides whether "you are unable to perform your duties"? The boss who doesn't like you? The supervisor who sees you as a threat?

That says everything about the industrial relations problem you get in a number of industries (not just rail). Why need your boss be your adversary? Mine isn't mine. He's someone (as is the company) I have a mutually beneficial contract with. They give me money, I give them my time and skills.

In most non-rail industries, that is indeed how those clauses are defined, FWIW. The railway runs by the Rule Book (quite rightly) in a way barely any other industry (non-transport at least) goes near.

Neil

 

[scott118]

so it is indeed your colleagues, and not your good self, who carry out their daily duties under the influence, allegedly? commendable duty of care you are showing, if that is the case..

 

[Jamesb1974]

That says everything about the industrial relations problem you get in a number of industries (not just rail). Why need your boss be your adversary? Mine isn't mine. He's someone (as is the company) I have a mutually beneficial contract with. They give me money, I give them my time and skills.

It is a fact of life that you meet people with whom you don't get along. Some of them are bosses. Whether yours is your best drinking buddy or your most hated adversary is pretty much immaterial to the concept of having an overzealous boss.

 

[Bletchleyite]

so it is indeed your colleagues, and not your good self, who carry out their daily duties under the influence, allegedly? commendable duty of care you are showing, if that is the case..

Who said anyone is carrying out their daily duties under the influence? You do make great (and false) assumptions.

I am rather a libertarian and don't like unnecessary rules, so I would only introduce any to solve an actual problem in a given scenario.

Neil

 

[plastictaffy]

To get an idea of what it was like in the days before the strict policies came in to force, speak to a railway worker who is nearing retirement age. Some of the stories I have heard from old colleagues about drink at work are hilarious but quite shocking and scary.

Was talking to a guy at my place about this the other day. They'd ended up on a failed ballast train somewhere out on the Weedon loop, not too far from Blisworth. One of the guys suggested screwing it down, leaving it there with dets and a red light for protection for a bit while they wandered the half mile or so along the trackbed into the village. They were in there for about 4 hours, until the foreman rung there (our heroes having presumably told him, via the bobby, where they were going) telling them a rescue engine would be there in about half an hour. They guy I was talking to (a guard at that time) ended up doing the coupling up, then they went for another couple of pints because the bobby told them they were going to be a couple of hours before he could let them back out. The Guard drove home, with the second man in the front cab with him a carry-out from the pub, and the driver had been poured into the rear cab to sleep it off as he was legless!!!


Another story from one of our drivers who used to be based north of the border. He's working a late express from Preston to Glasgow, and before setting off from Preston, nips to the offy to pick up 6 cans. Leaves Preston, and there was a booked stop at Carlisle. At Carlisle, it turns out there's a Traction Inspector looking for a lift back to Glasgow. By this time, our hero has drunk two cans and is well into his third. Sees the TI on the platform, and hides the can in the corner of the cab on the floor, not expecting he wants a lift home. TI hops on, and they get away from Carlisle. Our driver is sat there, with an open can down by his feet, and three just poking out of his bag. "About twenty minutes out of Carlisle, the TI turns round and says "Here Clive (not his real name) you haven't got a can on you, have you?" "It was quite tight at Carlisle to make this back, and I didn't have time to get cans before I left." Needless to say, our hero was sat there sweating up until this time. TI cracks open his can, and our hero whips his back out from where he'd hidden it!!! Normal service resumed.
Scary stuff, I can't imagine this happening today - christ, you'd be shot if it was suspected you'd even had a sniff!!!!!

I have also heard that deep in the bowels of Euston that there used to be a pub, with a sign above the bar stating that you had to be in uniform to get served!!!!!

 

[JBM 37404]

Was talking to a guy at my place about this the other day. They'd ended up on a failed ballast train somewhere out on the Weedon loop, not too far from Blisworth. One of the guys suggested screwing it down, leaving it there with dets and a red light for protection for a bit while they wandered the half mile or so along the trackbed into the village. They were in there for about 4 hours, until the foreman rung there (our heroes having presumably told him, via the bobby, where they were going) telling them a rescue engine would be there in about half an hour. They guy I was talking to (a guard at that time) ended up doing the coupling up, then they went for another couple of pints because the bobby told them they were going to be a couple of hours before he could let them back out. The Guard drove home, with the second man in the front cab with him a carry-out from the pub, and the driver had been poured into the rear cab to sleep it off as he was legless!!!


Another story from one of our drivers who used to be based north of the border. He's working a late express from Preston to Glasgow, and before setting off from Preston, nips to the offy to pick up 6 cans. Leaves Preston, and there was a booked stop at Carlisle. At Carlisle, it turns out there's a Traction Inspector looking for a lift back to Glasgow. By this time, our hero has drunk two cans and is well into his third. Sees the TI on the platform, and hides the can in the corner of the cab on the floor, not expecting he wants a lift home. TI hops on, and they get away from Carlisle. Our driver is sat there, with an open can down by his feet, and three just poking out of his bag. "About twenty minutes out of Carlisle, the TI turns round and says "Here Clive (not his real name) you haven't got a can on you, have you?" "It was quite tight at Carlisle to make this back, and I didn't have time to get cans before I left." Needless to say, our hero was sat there sweating up until this time. TI cracks open his can, and our hero whips his back out from where he'd hidden it!!! Normal service resumed.
Scary stuff, I can't imagine this happening today - christ, you'd be shot if it was suspected you'd even had a sniff!!!!!

I have also heard that deep in the bowels of Euston that there used to be a pub, with a sign above the bar stating that you had to be in uniform to get served!!!!!

It was the norm at one time, one incident down South with a Charter happened as the driver went drinking with the passengers, Eltham Hall accident Iirc.

 

[scott118]

Neil,

as the OP was rail staff and alcohol, I'm now failing to find any validity in your posts, as other industries for sure have very different rules and regulations. As a professional railwayman i wouldn't even contemplate trying to declare myself fit, should i not be, whether it be through drugs or alcohol, as we all know what the likely outcome can be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

as the OP was rail staff and alcohol, I'm now failing to find any validity in your posts

For front line rail staff, indeed. I was comparing policy for office based rail staff (customer services, say) with policy in typical office jobs. That seems a valid and on-topic comparison to me.

Neil