Railstaff and alcohol

[Rugd1022]

Despite the rules the odd idiot does 'slip through' occasionally, well almost... a while back a driver from another TOC turned up for an interview with my boss reeking of booze. Needless to say he didn't get the vacancy.

 

[scott118]

Neil,
are you asking if it's acceptable, for the likes of booking staff, customer service (lost property) or indeed, call centre complaints department staff, to be on duty, knowing that they've been drinking, before or during? In the days of bringing a company into corporate disrepute, surely that liability wouldn't be compromised.

 

[Bletchleyite]

are you asking if it's acceptable, for the likes of booking staff, customer service (lost property) or indeed, call centre complaints department staff, to be on duty, knowing that they've been drinking, before or during? In the days of bringing a company into corporate disrepute, surely that liability wouldn't be compromised.

I'm not asking anything. I'm making a comparison.

Neil

 

[Bodiddly]

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!!!!!

Stories I have heard;

A Pway ganger who used to get an overtime shift on a Friday to go out and survey the site they were working on at the weekend. His main part of the survey was to find the hidy holes to put the squads carry out in so they didn't have to carry it to site on the Saturday night!

An S&T colleague of mine telling me a story of a signaller in a very busy Glasgow box who was so drunk, he collapsed behind the panel in a deep slumber. When the drivers who were stopped at the red signals couldn't get an answer from the box, the Signalling Inspector was called for (who by the way was in the railway social club at the time) he went to the find out what was happening and at the same time the trains started moving again. When he got to the box he found the comatose signaller and a rather worried looking S&T lineman working the panel. The lineman, sensing what was wrong, had tried to cover up for his drunk mate and would probably have got away with it if he had come in sooner!

Various stories of train drivers, plant drivers, crane drivers etc having to be poured into their cabs to work!

And the funniest one I thought was how the signaller contacted the S&T faults team when they had a problem, they used to phone the pub they drank in!
Madness!

 

[plastictaffy]

Amazing how there weren't more accidents.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Amazing how there weren't more accidents.

Indeed - and given how bad it seems it was, it's unsurprising such a heavy tightening of the rules occurred.

Neil

 

[scott118]

in light of today's blame culture, i'm sure lots went by the wayside unreported. Having shovelled a ton of coal for every 50 miles, i think anyone would need a drink - and way back in the day, beer was probably the safest to consume.

 

[JBM 37404]

Not many jobs where you can drink at work without action. Darts player and rock star spring to mind.

 

[muz379]

Neil,
are you asking if it's acceptable, for the likes of booking staff, customer service (lost property) or indeed, call centre complaints department staff, to be on duty, knowing that they've been drinking, before or during? In the days of bringing a company into corporate disrepute, surely that liability wouldn't be compromised.

exactly . working in a booking office or lost property or just station customer service might not be safety critical . But it certainly portrays a shoddy image to the public if the booking office clerk stinks of booze

Id certainly think worse of a shop if I went in and the member of staff serving me on the till stunk of booze .

last two jobs I had in retail before working on the railway had zero tolerance D&A policies and I remember one colleague had his locker searched because it was suspected he was smoking weed on his breaks . Lo and behold they found a quantity of cannabis and he was escorted from the premises never to be seen again .

personally it does and has never bothered me that these rules existed . You sign the contract and agree to it . Don't like the rules then dont take the job .

 

[ItchyRsole]

Working 5 on 3 off is plenty of opportunity to get bladdered.

Anyone with half a brain who works on the railway knows drinking can't be a bug pastime of theirs if you'll be out on your arris.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Id certainly think worse of a shop if I went in and the member of staff serving me on the till stunk of booze .

There is however a difference between "stinking of booze" and "having a small amount of alcohol left in your bloodstream from some time ago". Effectively the difference between "able to have a few pints the night before once in a while" to "not ever being able to have a few pints the night before so you can be sure you are at zero".

This obviously isn't a big thing (except for an alcoholic) and as such most people won't avoid taking the jobs and will comply. But I do believe in any instance that rules need to be necessary, and for an office job I don't believe they are at that level. I do agree a "not under the influence while on duty" rule is necessary in pretty much all jobs, and is increasingly common (the lunchtime pint is pretty much dead in most industries these days), but for those who say it has to be a specified BAC they might do well to look at contracts in other industries and will find that it usually is not.

Neil

 

[BestWestern]

A big part of the uniform alcohol policy is removing the BR-era culture that booze on duty was acceptable. There are still many ex-BR staff working on the railway, and for many of them the switch to working on the privatised railway would have been a big change, in lots of ways. Privatised TOCs have far higher expectations of professionalism than under BR, and strict company-wide policies on such issues is a very clear and firm way of introducing change.

There is also the common sense issue that if you have certain staff in an office who 'have' to be subject to the D&A policy (i.e. control staff, on-duty managers and so on), it is entirely appropriate to ensure that all staff within that office are subject to those same rules. It removes any suggestion of grey areas or undesirable clashing of what is and is not permitted.

 

[fowler9]

I got breathalised in work last year (I don't work on the railways) and I was absolutely fuming. I had a boss I had a rather difficult relationship with and she went to her manager and said she could smell booze on me. He obviously then had to act on it. I was sat in a room for three hours with my boss waiting for the D&A testing person to turn up and unsurprisingly I blew zero. I told them that the night before I had had four cans with a mate and had stopped drinking at 11 and wasn't in work till 11 the day after. In my opinion my boss should have been made to have a serious conversation with her boss for taking herself and an experienced member of staff off the line for 3 hours of an 8 hour shift. She later complemented me on my professionalism over the incident and told me not to tell anyone because it was confidential. Ahem, I can tell who I like, they can't tell anyone. She is still working there making peoples lives a misery and probably driving them to drink, she is no longer my boss thank god. Ha ha.

These days I agree with a zero tolerance attitude to alcohol in the workplace, perhaps not in my younger days, because otherwise where do you draw the line. However, some lunatics in management will take it too far as in my case. I probably should have put in a grievance.

 

[Tomnick]

There is also the common sense issue that if you have certain staff in an office who 'have' to be subject to the D&A policy (i.e. control staff, on-duty managers and so on), it is entirely appropriate to ensure that all staff within that office are subject to those same rules. It removes any suggestion of grey areas or undesirable clashing of what is and is not permitted.

I suppose there's also the possibility of office types, at any level, being asked to help out during disruption. Even if it's not safety-critical stuff, I'd like to think that anyone working around the operational railway wouldn't be even slightly under the influence.

 

[Clip]

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

The concrete benefit is that no one should turn up to work under the influence so everyone can do their job properly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The concrete benefit is that no one should turn up to work under the influence so everyone can do their job properly.

Again it depends what we mean by "under the influence".

If it is accepted that it is safe to drive a car (a deadly weapon on wheels) with 50mg/100ml[1] there is clearly no issue with someone holding meetings in an office or operating a PC with that in their bloodstream. I don't propose a pint[2] before work (or indeed at lunchtime, despite this having been commonplace in years gone by) as sensible, but I do think catching people in office jobs out for a few pints the night before is over the top and unnecessary.

I do see the valid argument for "same for everyone", but that's more about fairness/clarity than actual effectiveness, surely?

Edit: That said, I've participated in discussions in here before on the subject of the drink-drive limit, and I recall the overriding view was that zero tolerance was the correct approach (genuine zero tolerance was the view by many, not even an "effective zero" of 10mg/100ml to avoid catching people out for such negligible things as mouthwashes and liqueur chocolates, or even a can of Shandy Bass which has so little alcohol in it it is legal to sell it to children) - perhaps that is now very much part of railway staff culture, and compared with years gone by that is certainly a good thing. But that isn't in my experience the overriding view elsewhere.

[1] To avoid discussion of whether the England/Wales limit is too high, which as 50mg/100ml is very widely accepted across Europe as the limit, including Scotland, there is a concrete argument that it is.

[2] I've played with a digital breathalyser purely out of interest, and if I drink a pint over an hour the effect on my BAC is negligible - I clear it quickly enough. Nonetheless I'd still smell of it, and going into work like that wouldn't be a great idea. But that's getting more into "appearance rules" territory, like dress codes, rather than anything to do with safety/effectiveness. Having double checked what the railway limit is, I would easily pass that. Not that I'd want to be driving a train with any alcohol in me at all - too much responsibility for peoples' lives.

Neil

 

[scott118]

[1] To avoid discussion of whether the England/Wales limit is too high, which as 50mg/100ml is very widely accepted across Europe as the limit, including Scotland, there is a concrete argument that it is.

Neil

where is it that you have got these figures from? Are they not :-

England/Wales/N.I - 35/100
Scotland - 22/100

 

[Bletchleyite]

where is it that you have got these figures from? Are they not :-

England/Wales/N.I - 35/100
Scotland - 22/100

They are the blood figures (which are more commonly quoted), the figures you have quoted are the breath ones. Both are correct, they are different measures. Confusingly they have the same units.

Neil

 

[scott118]

They are the blood figures (which are more commonly quoted), the figures you have quoted are the breath ones. Both are correct, they are different measures. Confusingly they have the same units.

Neil

BAC, not easily 'home tested' is it. Having been tested at work previously, and like i'm sure that other's have also, at the roadside, a breath test is more common, as it's by far the easiest and quickest result, as to what is a positive or a negative indication. Abstaining from alcohol prior to work negates the need to blow anything, whether that be, a requested breath test, an over inflated opinion or more importantly, your self respect.

 

[Bletchleyite]

BAC, not easily 'home tested' is it.

Most of the off-the-shelf test kits particularly the digital ones convert to blood alcohol figures, presumably because they are better known. A simple mathematical formula can do this.

Having been tested at work previously, and like i'm sure that other's have also, at the roadside, a breath test is more common, as it's by far the easiest and quickest result, as to what is a positive or a negative indication. Abstaining from alcohol prior to work negates the need to blow anything, whether that be, a requested breath test, an over inflated opinion or more importantly, your self respect.

Abstention will not excuse you a test on the roads; the police routinely breathalyse at accidents etc as they consider having had an accident reasonable suspicion. What it of course will do is ensure the test will certainly be negative.

Neil

 

[carriageline]

The random screening is what always makes me laugh. Manager walks in Monday morning, oh by the way your not in the box Thursday, you've been selected to pop up to Kings Cross on Thursday for a random D&A screening

 

[Bodiddly]

The random screening is what always makes me laugh. Manager walks in Monday morning, oh by the way your not in the box Thursday, you've been selected to pop up to Kings Cross on Thursday for a random D&A screening

I think that's more for drugs but it could also detect someone who has a problem with alcohol. Alcoholics, like other dependents, need to drink, and simply couldn't just switch off if they new they had a d&a coming up.
I have recently read the tragic story of the underground driver who died prior to his impending court date when he was allegedly caught drinking vodka whilst in charge of a tube train. Such a sad story of someone who may have succumbed to alcohol in more ways than one. Society is quick to judge but it is down to the individual to admit to themselves there is problem going on with their life. A good friend of mine was nearly killed by a professional driver who had been drunk at the wheel and from what she has told me, the health workers who have been rehabilitating her have said professional people with alcohol related problems are more common than you would think. They just don't show up as much on the radar until something goes wrong.
To get back to the point, a zero tolerance has to be uniform or it is open to scrutiny.

 

[DarloRich]

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

Well you are wrong - I work in an office in a typical office job and am subject to the same rules as the "front line staff". I am not in a safety critical role but my job takes me, from time to time, and often with little notice, trackside, to depots, signal boxes, to operational facilities and supplier facilities. I could be tested for D&A at any point in time. Why should I be different because am in the office most of the time?

It is about generating and fostering culture of safety and an understanding that we are all parts of the same chain. Our actions in the office could put someone in the field in danger. Say I am responsible for planning possessions and I miss something putting people at risk because I have a hangover. That doesn’t seem ok to me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well you are wrong - I work in an office in a typical office job and am subject to the same rules as the "front line staff". I am not in a safety critical role but my job takes me, from time to time, and often with little notice, trackside, to depots, signal boxes, to operational facilities and supplier facilities.

That's not a "typical office job", is it?

How often does a bank clerk working in a back office go to safety critical locations? Never, I'd venture.

I think I do now understand why it's just easier to have the same rule for everyone in the rail industry, though. It seems the line between office job and operational job is much more blurred than I thought it was - yours for instance sounds like a bit of both.

Neil

 

[Clip]

Again it depends what we mean by "under the influence".

You know fine well what I mean by under the influence, couldnt be bothered to read anymore after that sentence. This is why we have a zero tolerence towards alcohol so everyone is well aware of what is required of them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You know fine well what I mean by under the influence, couldnt be bothered to read anymore after that sentence. This is why we have a zero tolerence towards alcohol so everyone is well aware of what is required of them.

No, I don't, which is why I asked you. There is no need for sarcasm.

Neil

 

[Bodiddly]

My dad was a bricklayer and when I was 16 my induction to work was to do a little labouring for his squad. Lunchtime was a retreat to the local pub for a couple of pints and some food where I was allowed to be one of the men and drink lager. I can still remember being a little tipsy when returning in the afternoon to a building site, climbing ladders and walking along scaffolding with bricks and mortar. I was obviously not used to it whereas my Dad and his mates were just having a light lunchtime refreshment.
Nowadays (as an experienced drinker) I could have a couple of pints no problem without feeling impaired. The problem is, I am still technically intoxicated whether I feel it or not and judgement and awareness could be delayed enough for me to get struck by a train.
I can see the point you are trying to make Neil, working outwith a safety critical enviroment with no danger of being injured or causing injury, it is arguable that you could disappear to the pub at lunchtime and return to work and carry on your working day without any problem. The problem for me though would be that when some of my colleagues were swanning off to the boozer for lunch, I am stuck in the canteen with my soup and sarnies because I am in a safety critical post. It wouldn't be fair for a start! Of course there is a much more serious point to the whole workforce being subject to a zero tolerance policy. As an employer, you have a duty of care for ALL of your employees no matter which post they hold and you just could not have a selective policy for different members of staff. It really would be up to the individual employer, but I couldn't see any mid to large company not having a drug and alcohol policy nowadays.

 

[21C101]

Worth noting that there was a change in the law and the rules for drug driving are now quite similar to those we have had in years.

The police have the power to test for drugs on the same basis as drink with new drugalyser breath/saliva tests. Roughly speaking.

Illegal drugs = zero tolerance (which could mean you can't drive for a couple of months or more if you imbibe drugs which stay in your system a long time like Cannabis).

Prescription/Over the counter - allowed but ONLY if they do not make you drowsy and ONLY at prescribed/recommended doses (and I think onus is on you to prove both of those)

Since mods here don't like people posting weblinks (unless you quote tracts from the link) DYOR* - a search ending search on "drug driving or similar" will bring up various articles.

(*Do Your Own Research)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Illegal drugs = zero tolerance (which could mean you can't drive for a couple of months or more if you imbibe drugs which stay in your system a long time like Cannabis).

That's a rather interesting side-effect - it has effectively become illegal for any UK driver (so most adults) to consume that kind of item even when abroad where it may be legal/tolerated.

It will be interesting to see what prosecutions result.

Neil

 

[scott118]

I think I do now understand why it's just easier to have the same rule for everyone in the rail industry

what job is it, that you do yourself?